Hi folks. It’s been a while since last I wrote, due to time demands and some travelling (Peru - magical place, but I’ll put some notes on that next week). Anyway, for better or for worse, I’m back.

Today’s topic is one that I’ve suspected for some time: there are a lot of people working in customer service who really couldn’t give two hoots about customers.

At the risk of tarring everyone with the same brush, let me clarify something: there are a great deal of customer service workers who genuinely do give a damn about their jobs and the people their jobs bring them in contact with. I’ve had a little hassle with a large computer firm recently. After a month and more of getting nowhere, I finally chanced across one of these individuals, who put in a great deal of time and effort to sort out the tangled mess that other customer service personnel had left. I’d love to name him, but that wouldn’t be fair to the myriad of good, effective customer service workers out there - they all deserve credit.

However, the dark side of customer service is that, for many, it’s just a job. A way of earning a basic crust, and filling in the awkward gap between Sunday and Saturday. It doesn’t help that the job is often less than appealing; wages can be quite poor, the hours can be demanding and the public perception is of an industry that doesn’t look out for its own. Quite a number of people drift into customer service when they’re really rather be doing something else. This is the crux of my point: customer service is VERY important as it’s usually the attitude of the employee toward the customer which forms the basis of the perceived ‘friendliness’ of an organisation.

I think every organisation ought to do its best to make the job appealing, well-rewarded and with opportunity for progression. For if they don’t, you may not always attract the right kind of person.

John

I’m writing this from the perspective of both a client who wants to outsource inbound, outbound and customer service call centre work, and also from a customer’s viewpoint and i’ll explain why below.

Firstly, in my previous job I was client side and worked for a pan-european business that outsourced all ‘telemarketing’ activity including customer service. As a result of my job title ‘European Telemarketing Director’ my name and phone number appeared on many call centre business development manager’s call list and I received calls every week from folk wanting to pitch for business.

The one thing that annoyed me most about the initial conversations and pitches was that ALL companies approached the discussion with the assumption that as a client my primary concern was about cost which then led to discussions about off-shoring.

In truth, cost was an issue BUT not the number one concern - that was quality. I actually cared about my customers and genuinely wanted them to have a positive customer experience EVERY time they contacted us even if that was to raise a complaint or to cancel their membership. I believe that the best quality of service available is here in the UK for UK customer i.e. in local market so France for French customers and Germany for German customers.

For many years the direct marketing world has been consumed with CRM and maximising relationships with customers. Whilst for many this meant simply spending a fortune on software or analysis but no implementation we took a different approach. We didn’t invest millions in analysis software (we did spend something) but first simply put ourselves in the shoes (or ears) of our customers and asked ourselves how would we want to be treated? What would our expectations be? How did we define good service?

From the call centre perspective we should remember this and reference it in the pitches we make to prospective clients.

Secondly, from a personal point of view I had a very enlightening conversation with a chap from HSBC (who I’m sure you all know offshore to India and beyond). I’d phoned the telephone banking line to ask why a transaction for less than £10 had been refused when there was more than sufficient funds in my account. The agent asked me what shop i’d been in and when I explained I had shopped on-line at Amazon, she immediately tried to transfer me to the internet banking team.

After much huffing and puffing (and I hate doing that) I managed to explain that she should be able to deal with my enquiry. Unfortunately the call ended with the agent saying she had no idea why the charge had been refused either! I then sent an email for the attention of the CEO of HSBC (if you’re going to complain - make sure it counts!) and I got a call back (not from the CEO). I spoke with the guy who is responsible for the quality of service for the UK and he was really keen to know what I expected as a customer, wht I thought of the call (as someone from the call centre world) and what did I think could be done better. He explained that the reason they’d gone offshore was availability of good quality staff in the UK. He also explained that Offshoring is giving the bank real problems and that finally they’re taking this seriously. They’ve now started an initiative with M&S on quality benchmarking and taking external advice. He felt this was the last chance for continuing offshoring and if it failed, they may come back to the UK.

Does this mean that there’s hope for the future? If HSBC is reassessing their decision to offshore and making a final attempt to improve quality - will that make others sit up and listen? Could it mean that work will come back to the UK?

I am not a natural whooper and leaper. On a bad day, even the most perky effervescent cheerleader type would probably find curmudgeonly1 a generously optimistic adjective for me.

However one thing I do buy into is the power to influence others; small changes we can make to what we do that can have a big impact on the actions of others. And if this is applied positively (using your powers for good) so much the better!

For example: My fifteen-month old daughter (not uniquely!) has an aversion to having her nose wiped. And thanks to a ‘summer cold’ this is an activity we have to do with alarming regularity recently. (Sorry – stay with me, that’s as graphic as it gets and there is a work-related point to this!) Weary of chasing her round and cornering her with a piece of tissue (at this point do feel free to add a Benny Hill style soundtrack to the image for maximum effect), to be greeted by tears, tantrums and flailing limbs, I considered the situation objectively and examined our respective roles. By doing this I was able to change what I did which then influenced her response. So rather than feed her reaction (“I know, you don’t like having your nose wiped, but it has to be done – now, hold still, please!”), I started praising her (initially non-existent!) co-operation (“Well done! What a good girl having her nose wiped.”). And it really helped, at first her reaction was less extreme, then calm and after five days I just have to ask her if she needs her nose wiped and she says yes and comes straight over!

Separate out what you can control, influence or merely respond to and then adjust your side of the script to influence theirs. Simple!

Now if this sounds to you a little like NLP, well I’m glad you noticed! Joking2 aside, I think some of the more practical NLP techniques can be fairly useful in the call centre/customer service environment. For example I would say that the ability to guide an irate customer to a more reasonable and responsive state to begin to resolve their issue using Pace, Pace, Lead is quite a handy tool. And I would also say that a course for agents to be trained to tap into the callers’ processing preferences by noticing whether they use visual, auditory or kinaesthetic references and then adjusting your own responses accordingly in order to increase conversion is probably not going to bring about the return on investment you hoped for.3

Now typically call centre agents barely have five minutes let alone five days to work this magic on customers. But there are some really simple small things agents can do that can make a difference.

Consider this: If an agent needs to refer someone on, rather than saying, “I’m sorry I can’t help you with that, you would need to contact X”, try saying “Yes, you can do that by contacting X” And how about even anticipating the next question and offering the number! The outcome is the same in both, but how the caller perceives the level of customer service they have received is likely to be more favourable in the second example. Now this example is fairly generic, but I’m sure you can come up with a selection of typical exchanges in your own environments that could benefit from a few simple changes that may even have a Pareto-style4 effect on levels of customer satisfaction. Ask your agents – I’m sure they could come up with some suggestions!

Whether you support NLP or not, surely anything so simple with the potential to reduce callers’ frustration levels is worth some consideration.

Zoe

1 An ill-tempered person full of resentment and stubborn notions.
2 NLP being the art of noticing – well I thought it was witty!
3 Scoff all you like, but as an agent I once endured a five hour session to do just that.
4 Pareto’s law states that 80 % of the objectives or effects are achieved with 20 % of the means or causes.

I am not a meek person.

I am demanding, exacting and have high expectations. I have a low tolerance for ineptitude and intellectual laziness.

And I’ve experienced a few customer service failures recently that have particularly frustrated me.

It’s not that I don’t accept that things can deviate from plan; I’m actually a firm believer that it is not so much what goes wrong, but more how a situation is dealt with, by organisations demonstrating positive reaction and resolution, that influences customers’ loyalty and shapes their impression of that company.

People are human, and will make mistakes, however robust your recruitment, training and ongoing development may be. And unanticipated (and unanticipatable!) things will also happen from time to time, often way outside an organisation’s sphere of control or influence, to throw things awry.

Neither of these things is the issue. It’s when things go wrong despite or particularly as a result of everything being done right that I seethe. Processes that are planned in isolation, that don’t drill down further than the most superficial of customer needs and wants, and that are even sometimes designed purely for the convenience of the organisation itself.

For example, I recently needed to request a standard form from my bank. Everyone I spoke to was polite, friendly and helpful, and would rightly have scored very highly on whatever quality metrics were applied, but yet I was not satisfied with the experience*. If I complained, I’m sure it wouldn’t be referenced as such, as nothing actually went wrong.

Isn’t there a case for organisations examining these non-compliant complaints further as indicators for process or procedural conflict? The assumption that all customer service failures are as a result of people or circumstances would be staggering organisational arrogance. Progressive organisations listen to customers, speak to staff and adapt and grow.

This isn’t to say that everything customers want will ever be deliverable, and there is perhaps a case that customers are becoming more difficult to satisfy; what delights them today, they expect as standard tomorrow. We just need to ensure we are looking in the right places for problems.

Zoe

*I called the number listed against my branch in the phone book and was told I had come through to the national call centre, I needed to call my branch on the number they would give me as they were unable to send out the form. But because it was (just) after 4.30pm on Friday they would not be available until 10am Monday. On Monday I called and my branch staff were unavailable, so I was routed to the cluster support team, who were also unable to send me the form, but took my details to pass a message to the branch to put one in the post. 10 days later, the form arrived. Grrrrrrrrrrr. And don’t get me started on everything else!

Hi everyone. It’s been a while since last I wrote, and I’ve been pretty busy what with work, rest and play. But mainly work. Lots of it. We’ve also collectively been devoting our efforts into moving this and our other sites onto a new server and setting up a new framework with which to move everything forward.

However, I’ve been feeling a bit guilty, having neglected the ‘Gurus log for quite some time. And I’m here to do something about it.

Today, I’m going to put my thoughts down about Oftel and ask: Is this feeble beast ever going to learn how to bite?

Time and again, I see examples of companies abusing their positions, and being let off by Oftel with little more than a mild frown and a “ooh, naughty boy, don’t do it again". We have the potential for a world-class telecommunications infrastructure, if only we could shift the dead wood and anti-competitive practises from our industry and encourage innovation and competition. However, with the limping, toothless mutt that is Oftel, our industry ‘watch-dog’ is no deterrent to anyone.

I used to think that the biggest problem was the fact that our communications infrastructure was borne of a state-run monopoly. Privatising this monopoly was in principle a great idea, but it has certainly had more than its fare share of critics. The resultant public company, who shall remain unnamed though I imagine you all know exactly who I mean, has always skirted on the edges of ‘the rules’. Regardless, it’s a publicly traded organisation and as such we can almost excuse its dirty tricks; in a nutshell, its goals are like any other of its ilk - to maximise revenue and add shareholder value - and it is obliged to do this under the terms of its public listing.

As an industry, we need to be protected from the abuses of giant telecoms concerns such as the one in question. Its stifling, anti-competitive operations can be considered as resistance to the threat of alternative choices. However, with the power that big business has, it is vital that someone referees. We all know in our hearts that big business does bend and often break the rules, and will always do this unless kept in check.

So, there is a clear need to provide both an effective ‘watch-dog’ and a ‘referee’ for our industry.

This is where Oftel comes in. It is meant to regulate against all manner of bad industry practises, and provide an independent body to act as industry arbitrator. It should be an example of a highly trained, fair-but-capable ‘watch-dog’, keeping everyone in check.

It fails miserably.

I have a feeling that it is doomed to continue to fail unless it is reformed into a many-toothed beast with real power. I’d like to see it operating with the ‘no bullshit’ force of HM Customs & Excise (a veritable Doberman Pinscher amongst ‘watch-dogs’) or some other such body. It needs the power to act, and needs to actually see its threats through.

However, again and again we see little bark and almost no bite. I ask: is it now time to disband Oftel and create an industry regulator that actually regulates? To turn our toothless “Mutley” into a “Sabre” or “Cerebus"?

It’s been a little while since my last article here - I’ve been pretty busy with a new venture, trying to get it up and running and at the same time taking a little bit of a break from call centre matters. However, in my absence something really pressing has come up that I couldn’t resist basing this article upon.

This pressing something is the rise of call centre fraud, which has become particularly evident where offshore call centres have been involved. I’ve taken a little flak in my time from some people who seem to think that I’m anti-outsourcing. This isn’t true, though I do feel that outsourcing is often used too readily in the call centre when a more considered approach might be wise. However, I digress. Fraud in the call centre.

Yahoo News reports that outsourced, offshore call centre employees at Mphasis BPO have allegedly stolen �200,000 from the accounts of their customers, predominantly US-based. They have allegedly used the personal details of select customers to orchestrate the theft, and to-date despite the best efforts of the East Indian police, the vast majority of the money has not been recovered.

Earlier this year, another call centre in India suffered a similar outbreak of employee fraud, and several arrests were made.

Security is an ever-increasing concern for all companies making use of outsource call centres. It is those same companies responsibility to ensure that the outsource call centres are reputable and secure. However, it’s becoming clear that mismatches in regulation, business procedure and management are exposing customers’ personal information to the risks of misuse.

In the UK, much is made of information regulation. The Data Protection Act requires companies dealing with personal data to maintain certain standards and shoulder certain responsibilities over the way they treat personal and financial information. However, it would appear that there are (from the UK perspective, but probably more widespread) loopholes and regulatory failings which fail to cover these overseas outsourced contact centres.

Prevention is better than cure

It’s all very well talking about the effectiveness of monitoring and policing within outsource call centres, but it is up to us to ensure that whichever outsource call centres we use adhere to the very highest levels of security. If an offshore call centre cannot meet the most stringent security measures, then we should move to one that can. Price should take second place to security where personal and financial information is to be outsourced.

It saddens me that the sterling work of the great many outsource call centres is tarnished by the actions of a few ruthless and dishonest individuals whose actions create customer distrust and resistance.

John

I know a man who can….

As this is a family site all the swear words have been deleted from the following story. It’s been a while since I’ve blogged anything but things have been a bit hectic. This one isn’t really Call Centre related but I thought the general ideas might apply.

A couple of months ago I organised a surprise party for a friend of mine, using a local pub in Watford I hadn’t been to recently. It had the advantage of being easy to get to and having a separate function room.

Whilst sorting out the details with the (new) landlord the conversation go onto entertainment and Audo Visual.

From this I ended up offering (with assistance from a friend who’s a sparks) to install and align an old 3 gun video projector in the bar. Not a problem, I’ve not used this particular model before but the principal is the same for all of them.

We arranged to go in on Good Friday to hang the projector and do the alignment. Now I haven’t done one for a few years but I’ve probably done 50-60 in the past. OK I think, ‘This’ll take 3-4 hours’, and so it should have.

This was where the fun started.

In the weeks before I’d had fun getting a remote control so I could get the alignment grid up and trying to obtain a manual. In the end I ended up with a copy in PDF format for the next model up but no problem there. For what it’s worth Seleco’s customer service is non-existent. I’d say bad, but I couldn’t even get a reply let alone an answer off of them.

So we get to site.

And the projector is already on the ceiling. Ah…

The landlord had thought he’d help by putting it, and the screen up in advance. So I spent four hours trying to align the projector using every trick I could remember o make it work.

As a technical note, the screen size and alignment is VERY dependant on the distance and angle from screen to the MIDDLE of the projector.

Now here’s the diplomacy in action. How do you explain that the down angle should be 12 degrees and he’d set it to 20+; also the throw distance should be about 8′ for the screen size and it was nearly 12. The screen top was also higher than the guns rather than level with.

Having had a crash course in projector alignment my colleague (the sparks) went back last weekend and spent another 4 hrs moving it nearer the screen, changing the height and re-aligning as I’m in Manchester and not down every weekend.

So he moral of the story I suppose is.

Sometimes it may be a simple job but it can cause problems down the line. You may be able to do part of the job but what impact is that going to have?

Whilst it added problem s the landlord thought at the time he was helping but in effect he wasted a day of our time trying to work around the problem that wouldn’t have existed if he’d let us fly the thing in the first place.

At the end of the first day the mantra was “Why didn’t he just let us hang it?”

As an additional note does anyone have a manual for a Seleco SVT150?

I suppose this applies to all trades, how many tradesmen are making a living off of DIY disasters? So it’s not bad news for all.

DaveA

Some people are lucky; they sail through life with a ‘devil may care’ attitude and don’t seem to be susceptible to the ill-effects of the modern workplace. For the rest of us, though, we’ve got to watch out as there is a very real and ever-present danger in every workplace, be it small or large.

That danger is stress.

Sometimes stress isn’t taken seriously enough, yet it is one of the most commonly cited reasons for employee absence. Unlike most ailments, however, stress can take more than a few days tucked up in bed to cure. For many people stress is debilitating, impacting in all areas of their lives. Relationships suffer, tensions rise, friendships wane. It’s a bad thing.

In the call centre, it’s quite common for agents and management alike to be placed under ever-increasing pressure to meet often arbitrary performance targets. Quite often these targets are based on bad management information and as a consequence unattainable. However, senior management isn’t always the most rational of beasts, and so no quarter is given to those who speak out. As a result, we are bound by unrealistic targets and this places enormous - often insurmountable - pressure onto us.

This causes stress!

Some ideas to mull over

The question is: are call centres particularly conducive to employee stress? I’d like to suggest that they are, and that we can do something about it.

Modern contact centres are all about efficiency and lowered costs. Sure, many will argue otherwise, but when push comes to shove, it’s about getting the most out of a workforce for the lowest overall cost. It should therefore come as no surprise that the workforce get stressed when every last detail is analysed using spurious and unreliable analyses. The average senior manager cares not for statistics. They care not that the mathematical basis for their pie-charts is based on incomplete or incorrectly interpreted data. They just want to ensure that the little graph of costs keeps heading down whilst its sister graph of profits heads up.

The pressure to perform is all around us.

We can, however, do something about all of this. We need to ensure that senior management is educated to the knock-on effects of nebulous and unrealistic target setting. Tell the Pointy Haired Bosses that their targets need to be realistic - and ensure that we exercise our right to full disclosure on the measures that such bosses use to define performance, targets and so on. Emphasise the point that the continual tightening of the target thumb-screws is resulting in worker stress and hammer home the point that stress is extremely dangerous to an organisations resourcing; people quit, or end up on long-term sick-leave. Educate your colleagues - ensure that they understand that stress is not a good thing, it’s not macho and that long hours do not necessarily let you achieve more. Host a chill-out day - something fun which allows workers to leave the daft targets behind and relax. For that matter, why not offer free relaxation sessions or even massage?

There are so many ideas to combat the effects of stress, but these are reactive and the best way to deal with stress is to prevent it ever happening. As managers and strategists, we must be very careful about what we ask of our workforces, and we must ensure that our targets are not built on false assumptions and lies.

Well, I’m back from a weeks skiing and feeling like waxing lyrical. As I’m not overly known as a ‘people person’ and am never likelyto be the worlds greatest trainer I thought I’d share a few observations from the last week.

Point one: I’m not the worlds greatest skiier and never will be

Point two: Last year I didn’t do very well. I finished the week thinking I hadn’t done anything at all.

At the end of this week I was skiing Red runs comfortably and thinking WOW I can do this! So what changed? The simple answer is my instructor, at the end of the first week I was STILL having problems stopping. This year that problem was solved within 15 minutes on the first day ( 2 minutes to recognise the problem and 13 to ‘break’ the habit). Looking back on the first year, the sessions were fun but I didn’t seem to get anything out of them. This year again fun but an actual feeling day on day of getting something out of it.

One thing that stands out however is the different Styles.

This year the instructor would call one person down at a time, then spend just 60 seconds pointing out ONE error and getting tghem back into line, working on one problem at a time. Last year everyone go down then a group breakdown on the problems. Obviously the task loading with the two techniques is radically different.

Example 1 (This year). Ski down, speak to the instructor and get “You need to push further into the skis as you stop". Back to the top and wait to go again. With thinking time about correcting the one error. Repeat as required.

Example 2 (Last year). Ski down. Back to top. Wait for everyone else to go. Instructor says, “Dave you need to push into the skis, Keep your upper body straight, Start the turn earlier and move the knee more, away you go.” Repeat once or twice.

Now which of these is better? Are either of them wrong? People learn in different ways I know and we’re really into a subject here I know almost nothing about.

So a couple of questions to the trainers here.

1. How you decide how to teach a group?
2. How do you know if it’s working 1/2 way through the session?
3. Is it correct to change the method 1/2 way through?
4. Do you tell the group you are changing or just do it subtly?
5. How do you judge success during a session?

Have fun,
DaveA

An ever-increasing number of us are finding the benefits of affiliation with one of the various call centre or customer service organisations. The most obvious of these is the Call Centre Association, but there are many others.

Membership of such well known organisations can be extremely beneficial, but we’re interested in hearing about the lesser-known associations and networks. How did you find out about them? Is it helping you develop or improve your call centre, or if you are a supplier, is it generating new business.

This of course extends beyond the sphere of our own industry. Many have written of the benefits to be had from being affiliated with organisations for business networking, including Chambers of Commerce and local business development agencies. Often, these organisations can offer funding opportunities for business growth or recruitment incentives.

Again, we’d be interested in your comments about any affiliation with such organisations - is it worth it, and has your company benefitted? Would you recommend others to look into such organisations.

“Why are you asking all of this", you may wonder. Well, everyone knows that in modern business (in any discipline) it’s not so much what you do but who you know and how much you are able to work that network. Playing the networking game can be hugely beneficial in many ways.

So, let us hear your thoughts on affiliations.

We hear a lot of negative talk in the media about the way that call centre agents are generally treated. This is often blown out of all proportion, but it does highlight that we can often treat our call centre employees that little bit better: this article contains a few ’soft skills’ pointers which are worth bearing in mind:

1. Remember that agents are only human

Yes, it’s true. Whilst the managers are thinking about maximising return on investment by squeezing the last ounce of performance from the various teams, it’s all too easy to forget that call centre agents are individuals, with the needs, desires, strengths and weaknesses that we all possess. Don’t expect super-human performance: reward it when you see it, but nobody can perform at 100% for sustained periods of time - factor this in, and don’t try to fight against it.

2. Agents know about working the ‘phones better than the managers

In other words, the best people to identify any flaws in the call centre are the people who use it day-in, day-out. Don’t forget that as one gets familiar with a tool, new flaws may be revealed that were previously masked. Talk to your agents, see what they think about the systems they use.

3. Make it fun

Happy employees make for effective employees. If you can make little changes or allowances that make the agents’ jobs more enjoyable, you will find increased retention, better performing individuals, and such people present a much more professional image to the customers who they are in contact with. A future article will discuss some great ideas about introducing effective incentives into the call centre and some case studies. For now, however, just use a little lateral thinking. Think: what can I do (as a manager) to make my agents’ happier?

4. Talk, don’t preach, to your agents

Getting to know each and every agent may well be an enormous task, and not something that can be expected of every manager, but it’s at least worth making an effort to break the ice with some. After all, getting to know the agents - their concerns, ideas, issues and even finding out what is going well - all of this enriches our understanding of the true dynamics of the call centre without relying on MIS, much of which is somewhat spurious. Developing one’s soft skills provides a degree of balance which will help you make better, more informed decisions. Don’t forget to treat agents as equals - don’t preach, lecture or judge from on-high: these are your troops and they must also respect you - and the best way to do this is to get to know them and show them that you actually give a damn.

5. Exercise reason

Don’t expect the impossible - setting hurdles too high helps nobody. There is a fine line between effective versus ridiculous objective setting - and only experience, and the points above, will allow you to judge this properly.

As ever, I welcome your comments. This isn’t a definitive list by any means, and it’s all simple common-sense, which could be applied to investment bankers, tradesmen, software developers or teachers. It’s basic man-management, and it’s something we should all practise.

On February 26th my wife Tania & I will be flying out to Sri Lanka, with Global Crossroads, to participate in the reconstruction of Galle in Sri Lanka, following the devastation cause by the tsunami. My company, through their charity services arm - Zurich FS Cares - have generously donated an additional 2 weeks of my time to allow me to extend my involvement to 4 weeks.

During the week following the devastating tsunami disaster, the Sri Lanka government officially confirmed 29,729 dead with another 5,240 reported missing. In addition, 16,665 are confirmed injured and 805,978 people are displaced. The tsunami destroyed 91,059 homes with another 24,942 reportedly damaged.

Global Crossroad’s Tsunami Reconstruction volunteer Project allows volunteers to support the reconstruction efforts of grassroots organizations in Sri Lanka. Volunteers will work with Global Crossroad’s staff and villagers in specially designed reconstruction projects ranging from work in orphanages, hospitals, and community centres to rebuilding schools. In particular, efforts will focus on rebuilding the school and 79 homes destroyed in the village of Galle. We are also helping to provide relief & assistance to children who have lost their parents, through the local orphanages.

Please take the time to look up the site - globalcrossroad.com - there are many opportunities all around the world to get involved in projects from reconstruction to teaching to animal rescue. This may not be a traditional way to spend your holidays, but can you really think of a better one?

There are 3 important messages I would like to get across here…

1) 2 months passing is not long… the relief effort and rebuilding in areas such as Sri Lanka will take many years, and even more for the economies to restabalise - DO NOT STOP GIVING. DO NOT STOP MAKING A DIFFERENCE

2) There are more ways to give than just money. We are donating our time, and our friendship; people from both our companies have donated so many presents & clothes for children that we have had to arrange a cargo freight to take over 25 large bags - the people doing the freight also donated their time & effort as well as the cost; our companies have donated our time, to help us maximise this opportunity. WHOEVER YOU ARE & WHAT EVER YOU DO THERE IS A WAY FOR YOU TO HELP

3) (Especially) GLOBAL COMPANIES HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO BE GOOD WORLD CITIZENS. It costs very little to give 2 weeks paid leave, but the difference those 2 weeks can make is significant. If companies not only support this, but make an effort to raise awareness, then a small contribution can spiral into a big happening as more people will find ways to get involved.

Does outsourcing customer service represent an admission by a company that customer service is simply not a priority? That’s the question that raises its head today.

The case against the outsourced customer service department:

Delegating the customer/company relationship to an external firm is viewed by many as shirking the responsibility for good customer service. Cultural and language differences mean that customers find it more difficult - indeed, frustrating - to communicate their issues to the third party. Customers find it frustrating to have to repeat themselves, or find it often impossible to communicate a particular query or concept to someone who really doesn’t know or understand the nature of the business. Outsourced agents frequently have no real understanding of the products or services of their partners’ businesses. The very fact that the person on the other end of the telephone might well be relying completely on an inflexible script, with inadequate training and infrastructure to really deal with the needs of the caller. Not good.

The case for:

This seems to boil down solely to one of money. Outsourcing can be both less expensive to an organisation, and more tax efficient.

Customer Service - if you can call it that…

Outsourcing is a difficult call, particularly in customer service. Creating a seamless transition between an organisation and it’s outsourced partners is a non-trivial matter, and one which frequently does not meet expectations. Whilst I accept that financial concerns are a very real part of organisation planning, and a compelling reason to take the outsourcing route, I am seeing an ever-increasing negative reaction from the customers of those organisations.

Heck, I’m in that boat myself: though I know better, I often feel my heart sink when I find myself speaking to someone in a different continent, who struggles to understand my Fife twang; quite often, my query is of a technical nature and the script that the agent is using is neither flexible nor detailed enough to help me; invariably, I find that it’s the communication aspect that lets the whole process down. I feel deflated, saddened. No closer to a resolution of my plight, and the cost of a phone call (of probably twenty minutes or more) poorer…

I thus get the impression that the company doesn’t really care too much about me or my plight. If they did, I think, they’d have someone efficient, well-trained and a real member of their organisation at the other end of the phone. Someone who speaks my language well, understands the context and the level of my query, and has enough knowledge of their company to be able to find an answer even if a script is found wanting.

Sadly, this is not the norm. I won’t name names, but we’ve all encountered the kind of organisations I’m talking about: quick to take your money, reluctant to provide you with the necessary level of customer service. Quite often it appears that they just don’t care, and outsourcing is the cheapest option for them.

More and more, I forsee customers rejecting such organisations in favour of the kinds of companies whose approach is much more tuned to the needs of their customers. I know I am increasingly feeling this way, and if it’s true of me it will be true of many people.

I read today about the findings of a report concerning people’s reaction to call centres. It seems that a backlash against call centres has begun with a growing number of people abandoning calls before they are even answered, according to the Dimension Data survey. Customers are hanging up in frustration after realising that they have been diverted to India or some ‘non UK’ destination, or when they find out that they’ve been placed in a long queue.

Quelle surprise…

In fact, many have become so irritated by customer services that they are prepared to wait little more than a minute - with the surveyed customers now only prepared to wait 65 seconds compared with 71 seconds in 2003.

Does this mean that the cards are on the wall for outsourcing? In the wake of many UK companies’ decision to outsource call centres overseas, are we about to see the man-in-the-street making a stand - which will (perhaps justly) hurt the very companies who outsourced overseas?

Personally, I find outsourced call centres to be a very mixed bag: some are effective, but others fail due to things like cultural and language incompatibilities and also the time delay. In fact, just last night my wife had an ‘Outsourced Agent From Hell’ (OAFH) who was determined to sell her some unnecessary cover for her credit cards. Mrs. C., being normally very polite - well, okay, having the capability to be polite - tried to explain but due to language difficulties, the time-delay and other factors, she couldn’t get a word in edgeways.

To turn it around…

If call centres are ever to move on from their ‘disliked’ status within the public at large, it’s going to be as a result of organisations pulling out of these often derided overseas outsource centres and re-establishing themselves within their own country. It’s going to be as a result of better resourcing, so that queues are minimised, and a result of IVR systems being more effectively designed.

These are things that might just give this industry a chance of turning the general public perception of this industry around for the better. However, most companies seem to be moving in quite the opposite direction.

John

Recruitment always seems to be a popular subject in the discussion pages.

It’s always difficult to find the right person for any given role, and it should come as no surprise that the customer service and call centre recruitment industry is buoyant. With an ever-increasing proportion of the workforce being connected in some way with call centres, there is potentially a lot of movement and as a result there are many firms mining the recruitment seam with success.

Many recruitment firms frankly charge far too much for what they offer. One (unnamed) UK recruiter charges upwards of one hundred pounds per position for a listing on their website. This seems somewhat extortionate. What is surprising is the number of companies that appear to be prepared to pay this premium.

If you’ve been following the main discussions, you’ll probably know that we’re planning on introducing a sensibly priced, dedicated job mart for advertising call centre positions. Initially this will be UK only, but we’ll introduce it on a more worldwide basis shortly after launch.

However, this is only half the battle. Organisational and departmental politics can shape the particular recruitment strategies that are followed, and quite often it’s a case of plumping for preferred suppliers or ‘the first ad that looked good in the trade magazine’. Often at great expense.

We want to tell you all that there’s absolutely no need to go to all of that expense. CallCentreJobs.net, our forthcoming sister site, will offer all that the established online recruitment sites offer, but at a fraction of the price. We’ll cover our costs, naturally, but above and beyond that there’s no need to ‘fleece’ employers.

We see it as taking a high quality, high value-for-money approach to the whole messy business of finding the right people. With a high standard of readership and an excellent established brand, we hope that you’ll choose us to help you fill those posts, and bring down the costs of finding the best people.

We’re aiming to launch in early March, so there is much to be done. We’re terribly keen to hear your ideas and suggestions, so please talk to us and we’ll build you the recruitment site you really want.

John

You might not know this, but we recently introduced a recommended links page for those websites that we reckon are well worth visiting. We’ve even added a special contact page so people can recommend links.

So, where are the recommendations, people? I mean, go on, let us know what other sites we ought to have. They must be useful, not overtly commercial, and interesting. We’d prefer sites which will reciprocally link back to us, but if they’re genuinely useful that shouldn’t be a requirement.

Also, we’re looking for interesting web logs (blogs) which are in a similar vein to our own - we’ll happily create a list of quick links from here - we just need to know what’s popular and worthwhile…

So, let us know (via the link above) if you can help…

I am always interested in observing and learning from the great leaders of our time. In some fields it is obvious who the leaders and the pioneers are: in technology there are both the big businessmen - for example, Bill Gates - and the visionaries - for example, Steve Jobs. However, in the call centre industry we don’t appear to have any major personalities - or do we?

Perhaps you can all help me out here. What I’d like to know is exactly who is pushing the boundaries of our industry - not organisations, but the individuals behind those organisations. The real gurus, if you will.

Also, what about the rising-stars; the up-and-coming people behind the best new ideas in our industry.

Please feel free to offer serious suggestions and your reasons why you think they should be recognised as driving forces for the call centre industry.

John

In the early days of CallCentreVoice, back when there were only a few hundred members, Vedula Srinivas, one of the most respected members posed an interesting question which I think is one topic well worth re-visiting.

In brief, Vedula opened a proverbial can of worms when he asked of customer satisfaction, “can it be measured at all and if it is measurable does that mean all human feelings can be measured on a standard scale?“

The topic veered back and forth, arguing the point that if we are trying to measure ‘feelings’ then we are purely in the world of subjective, rather than objective, observation. Who is to say that my perception of the colour yellow is the same as yours? We have no easy way to assess these things.

However, though that question remains (in my mind) unresolved, it does make me wonder whether we’re all missing the point slightly. After all, is meeting some arbitrary satisfaction measurement enough of a goal?

It’s a People Thing

We are all products of our own environment, our own experiences and observations. What one individual sees as satisfaction cannot necessarily be said to be the case for another. It all depends on what we bring into the equation. For instance, we are not static - our moods change regularly, and this can influence how receptive we are to our environments. If we’re having a Bad Day it’s quite possible that we will perceive a less than perfect interaction as unsatisfactory, even if it would on any other day be perceived as more than satisfactory.

Sometimes we’re never going to be pleased!

Much of the customer service industry is driven toward meeting certain goals: resolution of complaints for example. Again my old nemesis MI springs to the fore. As I see it, so long as we strive to meet nebulous, possibly meaningless goals, we will never really keep the customer satisfied. Assume however that somehow the MI fell magically into place, and was an accurate metric on which to assess customer satisfaction, and then assume that everybody was working at utmost efficiency to meet the targets set within the MI. Is that really enough?

Consider the numbers. If we’re aiming for (say) a target of 95% issues resolved within a particular time period, then the mind-set is going to always be aiming for the 95%. It would certainly be possible to over-achieve, but the priority would be that 95% and the motivation to go further is lost once the target has been met. Say we have to respond to 1000 customers over this period - that makes a notional target of 950 with up to 50 customers potentially left in limbo. 50 customers, some of whom might well find this deeply unacceptable and tell their friends. People are, after all, far more likely to talk of bad experiences than good.

The key flaw in the percentage threshold model is that the really tricky issues, the ‘higher cost’ customers (for instance), may forever be stuck in that last 5%. The customers in question get fed up, complain or go elsewhere. They spread a negative impression amongst their friends, and perhaps become very vocal indeed. In fact, with today’s easy global communication via discussion boards, email, blogs and so on, one highly vocal customer can spread negativity like wildfire, and this is obviously Bad News. But it does go on.

The goal of perfection in my mind is unattainable, but as an objective I think reducing customer service to a series of hurdles that one must cross in order to achieve the management ‘pat on the head’ is highly risky, and something that I believe must change. So, aiming for the best we can do - regardless of whatever nebulous rules are put in place by an uncaring, uninformed management - is surely the way forward.

Perhaps customer service desks the world over should be asking themselves: “Let’s not aim for satisfying a majority - let’s see how we can keep everyone happy“

What do you think?

One of the challenges of running a successful discussion community is in accommodating the various flavours of people that form it. We all come with differing objectives, and site administrators and moderators strive to find a happy balance, an equilibrium in which the community can thrive.

Occasionally, however, that equilibrium becomes unbalanced. In a community such as this is, it can take the form of a mass shift in mood or objectives within the membership, or a lone voice. It can be a splinter group or a clumping of cliques. It is the job of a moderator to steer the community in such a way as to prevent fragmentation of the membership as much as is possible. However, as a community grows, its exposure to such unrest increases and splits occur.

We all must think of a community in the same kind of way that we think of any group of people. In my own case, I liken the growth of a community to that of a small hamlet as it progresses, over time, via village and then town, toward city. At each stage, there are different sets of issues and priorities which need to be understood and handled. If this doesn’t happen, the community either stalls or disintegrates. Much as can happen to a village when external and internal influences change its composition.

Singing from the same hymn sheet

At the root of community is purpose. In my mind, one of the things that marks a community from a random gathering is a sense of purpose or shared objectives. Without such a thing in place, whether it be to live in a pleasant location by a handy natural harbour, or to network amongst call centre decision makers worldwide, the need for purpose holds fast. We all need to be “Singing from the same hymn sheet“.

Taking CallCentreVoice as an example, we know that it was established with the objective of changing the industry for the better from within, by sharing knowledge and experience without commercial motivation. This hasn’t changed. Though that ‘village’ has progressed to ‘large town’, and its infrastructure has grown to cope, we can see that it’s vital to maintain focus on this same objective.

It is fair to say that a community is also a little like a sailing ship, insofar as it needs to be navigated and sailed with respect to its environment. Sea, wind, industry, technology - it’s all really the same thing at a grass-roots level: external influence. A community needs to be guided to ensure that it keeps ’sailing’ in the right direction, even if at times it is necessary to make adjustments to the course to take into account those external factors. It is not always an easy job, but it is always easier when the crew and passengers agree on the destination.

One of the great things about successful communities is the give and take; sharing some knowledge around is good for the industry at large, and furthers our stated aims. As it turns out with most communities, there are always those who are more vocal, those who are prolific, the sage-like personalities, the pranksters and the lurkers (amongst others). One of the most satisfying things I find is reading the many fine contributions from some extremely knowledgable and helpful people. To those people I am, as ever, extremely grateful as they do more than their fair share of making the community work. And, if those individuals ever find that it’s a largely one-way street, not to be disheartened. Take heart from the fact that you might well have made that vital difference to someone else; take heart from being able to share an idea, a concept, a method or even a vision; take heart from the feeling of giving.

We sail on, for our destination is good and just; we sail on, amidst the good and the bad weather; we sail on, for that is what we do.

Chins up, people!

A while ago, I posted some thoughts on a problem which I see throughout the industry (and elsewhere). Management Information (MI) is, in effect, a broad church of statistical inference from which management make decisions. That’s pretty much it.

In the previous article, I looked at some of the logical flaws which can really screw up that decision-making process. My main point was that most management don’t have the necessary training nor the motivation to really dig beneath the surface to understand the calculations and whether they actually have any valid meaning whatsoever.

This article follows on somewhat from the original. If you haven’t already done so, I’d recommend you read it to get an idea of where I’m coming from. Done that? Okay, I’ll begin.

A Complete Tool

Once upon a time, around eight years back, I was a technical consultant working on a consultancy tool for a major accountancy firm. Much effort had been expended in creating an application which would allow HR departments to assess role profiles and utilisation. However, this application was founded on some very ropey logic. You see, there are skills that people have and others that people don’t have. Most people don’t understand statistics, yet our lives are governed by the use and interpretation of statistical data. The problem is that (in my opinion) the very people who have the strongest grasp of statistical validity and ‘appropriateness’ are the very people whose opinions are ignored by the often rather clueless middle management (also known in many larger firms by the collective, shady notion of “The Business“) and as a consequence nothing useful can be derived from the MI.

As an aside, this application was subsequently used widely, and the initial marketing proposal for said system had the slogan: “XX XXXXXXXX - A Complete Tool” - which, where I come from, means something entirely different, but somehow it was quite apt!

No Time Like The Present

As a techie-by-trade, I’m often asked to help sort out fiddly little problems. I was approached recently by a friend whose role is basically MI. He was performing an audit of a contact centre KPI MI tool, which was basically a commercial application which had been hacked as if it were attacking one’s family. There was a calculation determining working time periods from logs. Like a crucial cog in a complex machine, this calculation was critical to many other calculations, which assumed that the values returned would be meaningful. However, it contained a Severely Erroneous Assumption.

The objective was to aggregate employees’ shift times, but took into account the fact that in any given shift, there was an automatic 1/4 hour break. The calculation went something like this:

NetShiftPeriod = (EndTime-StartTime)+0.25

…and this figure was summed for each individual for each day or somesuch.

However, the Severely Erroneous Assumption was assuming that 0.25 represented a quarter hour. It did not.

In Oracle, the particular field-type expresses times as their fractional part of a full day. Thus, one hour would be 1/24. or ~0.042 days. A quarter hour would be one quarter of this amount, i.e. around 0.01.

A typical shift being 8 hours, or 0.33 days, what was happening was that the calculation effectively skewing the results so that dependent calculations (e.g. agent bonus, KPI etc.) were way out. And they’d been using this as the basis of performance related pay, bonuses, promotions and so on, for at least eighteen months.

Scary biscuits, as they say…

Breeding Like Bunnies in Excel Hell

These days, the corporate world is run on a flimsy, fragile infrastructure of ill-defined, bug-ridden Excel spreadsheets. These nasty creations breed like rabbits, quickly undermining any real MI strategy. They are normally cobbled together in lunch-hours, with untested logic, false assumptions and are normally of extremely dubious design. However, although often Evil Incarnate, they are sadly unavoidable and another item of evidence supporting the MI Lie.

I recently had occasion to help a small team out on a staff movement audit tracker spreadsheet. Written, of course, in Microsoft Excel, and underpinned with its partner-in-crime, Microsoft Access. Originally written by Blind Io on stone tablets, this spreadsheet had the feel of a holy relic. It was revered and respected, but also feared. It had been around since day dot, and had stopped working. I’ll spare you the details (lest you go blind like dear Io) but in a nutshell it was the usual story:

• Junior Staff Member (JSM) tasked with creation of spreadsheet;
• JSM starts spreadsheet, but does not complete;
• JSM leaves for other role;
• Other Staff Members hack it about a bit depending on the whim of the day (repeat, rinse);
• Spreadsheet is a mess, but is Depended Upon, management in a pickle because it ‘disnae work nae more’;
• Someone like me gets called in to fix it, end up in therapy for months as a result.

Yes, that’s what I call Excel Hell. It’s a dark place. Avoid!

Summing Up

The MI Lie is a worrying conclusion to an inevitable trend. Too many chiefs, not enough injuns; but what can we do?

Sadly, there is no answer; as a wiser man than me once wrote, “There are no silver bullets“. We must tackle each and every battle in turn. Management, and the nebulous Business, need to be informed that the utmost care must be taken, and educated in the flaws that will result otherwise.

A while back, I posted the first article on my thoughts about switching to the Apple way of doing things.

A couple of people have asked me to go into more details, but in fairness, I would simply repeat what I said then - it’s as true now as then. To recap:

The anti-PC feelings:

• I was tired of endless problems with PCs;
• I could never rely on any PC - they’d crash at the most awkward moments without warning;
• Despite promises, nothing ever really worked as well as it should have - drivers were always hit or miss, and there were no guarantees that any two bits of PC hardware or software would work for me.

The pro-Mac feelings:

• Though I’d seen many people go from PC-to-Mac, it was very rare to see anyone go Mac-to-PC (without a great deal of pressure, at least);
• Apple computers bring back the fun;
• The hardware - it’s just the best;
• OSX is the best operating system available - the best of windowing and unix combined.

The crazy thing for me was that unlike the hardcore gaming fans, there was absolutely no reason for me to stick with clunky PCs whose instability could rear up and bite me at any point.

Once I started looking into the world of the Apple system (and I urge EVERY PC user reading this to check this link out, I found considerable evidence to suggest that I would both enjoy my computer time far more if I had an Apple system, and that I’d be more productive. Part of the reason for this follow-up article is to see whether that is still the case, after six months and more of Apple time.

Without waxing lyrical too long, the short answer is that I now feel I am ready to ditch PCs almost entirely. I regret the fact that, as this community is largely written in a PC-only scripting language called ASP, I will have to keep a PC in the wings for testing and development. However, that may well be a short term thing as I start to look into the viability of migrating the tens of thousands of lines of hand-crafted ASP code into something platform independent, such as PHP (which, incidentally, is the language in which this log’s software is constructed).

Let’s knock a few myths on the head first, however:

Myth (1): Apple is more expensive than a PC.
Used to be true, but try putting together a 6.5″ square micro PC with a decent operating system and applications for �340. You just won’t do it. There’s no financial reason not to go Mac;

Myth (2): They only use single button mice.
It’s fair to say that the Mac was originally designed with a single button mouse in mind, but the system has moved on significantly since the heady days of 1984. A modern Mac will use any USB PC compatible mouse (wired/bluetooth/wireless) and make use of as many buttons as there are on the mouse. The mouse I’m using is a Logitech MX-510 and it has eight buttons in total, all of which work perfectly in OSX 10.3.7.

Myth (3): Macs are slow and considerably less powerful than modern PCs.
Again, nonsense. The G5 processors in the PowerMac and iMac lines are more efficient per clock cycle than x86 based systems, and fully 64-bit. They’re also equipped with much faster hardware buses and, in conjunction with the superb OSX operating system, the overall effect is a computer that feels fast, responsive and never hangs - unlike any PC running Microsoft Windows.

Myth (4): You can’t get games on a Mac.
Of course you can. Just the good ones. Think of it in these terms: if a game is any good, it’ll generally be available on the Mac. If it isn’t any good, it probably won’t be ported but who cares anyway?

Myth (5): Macs don’t work well with PCs.
Couldn’t be further from the truth. My PowerBook is happily networked to my Athlon XP based desktop PC, and they all share the same peripherals - printer, ethernet switch, ADSL router - and in any case, I can operate my PC remotely using Remote Desktop. Very handy, and works very well…

There are many more myths to explode about the Apple Mac. It’s by far and away the better choice for most people: an operating system which isn’t prone to bugs, security leaks, viruses, worms and spyware. It’s secure out of the box, and it’s far more stable, robust and intrinsically reliable than Windows. The windowing system is far more advanced, prettier and has been designed with effective workflow in mind. If a facility exists in OSX, you can be assured it’s there for a good reason. And that it will work well. Windows XP simply does not measure up to OSX, and with the new 64 bit Tiger OSX coming soon, with the most fully featured search facilities on any operating system, I think that anyone looking for a computer to use, rather than fiddle with, would be mad not to check out the new Mac Mini.

I’m possibly biased - but then I have been a die-hard PC user for many years, and my bias is borne of years of painfully frustrating issues of incompatibility, unreliability and insecurity with Windows. Apple OSX on a PowerBook is a breath of fresh air - it’s like moving from an unreliable, quirky old banger to a modern, super sleek sports coup�. No more breakdowns, oil leaks and nasty surprises. Just the open road, and man at one with machine.

Here’s the goal for me, in case anyone wishes to donate to a good cause:

Yum. Dual 2.5GHz G5s in a sexy case with a super-high resolution 30″ LCD. This is my altar of geek worship, my dream… sad puppy, huh?

John

PS. Quite serious about this: if anyone wishes to be extremely kind to poor, hard-working me, I’d be delighted if you could purchase said system as a business expense and send it to me. I will forever be in your debt

Via another community that I frequent (slashdot.org), I found out about a remarkable individual whose proposal is that we all can live forever. Seems crazy, but the arguments certainly are persuasive.

Aubrey de Grey, a computer scientist who has taught himself natural science, claims that aging is, in his words, “something we need to fix.” In other words, by removing the ageing process as a factor in the degeneration of the physical self, we open the door to protracted life.

When I read the article at first, I was very sceptical, but to my own non-medically-trained self, de Gray paints a cohesive and consistent argument which, to me, makes sense.

Aside from his own claims in the field of cellular biology, what I find most intriguing is the fact that de Gray is entirely self-taught; he carries no formal qualification in his field, yet is regarded with a surprising level of respect and, it’s fair to say, celebrity, in this field. People like this are quite rare in any field - visionaries, you might say - and I am personally fascinated by the kind of person whose intellect and determination allows them to shine in a field against all the odds.

Although this hasn’t got a lot to do with call centres, I reckoned a lot of you might find it a fascinating read, and take a little inspiration out of what is possible with a positive mindset, conviction and a dogged determination to pursue a concept or an idea to the last.

Whether I want to live forever, or even for significantly past my three-score-plus-ten, is another matter. There’s a great ethical and moral can of worms to consider, not to mention the sociological, ethnographical and financial implications of biasing the world’s population toward a higher average age. The planet, as they say, is busy enough at approximately six billion individuals; to push back the house-call from old Grim Reaper is only going to lead to a more crowded planet.

I urge you all to read the article - link above - as it’s very interesting indeed. Please add your comments - I’d love to hear what you think about de Grey’s ideas or the concept of prolonged life…

Link to Article

Yesterday saw the launch of the new Apple Mac Mini (does this mean we’re getting a Mac Mini Cooper? ) and a fine beastie it appears to be too. Now, I’m probably biased, but I do feel that Apple should be applauded for trying to solve the age-old problems of usability, simplicity, ergonomics by applying radical and often revolutionary design approaches.

Seeing a computer base-unit of little more than a cd in area and a couple of inches in thickness, it makes me wonder about the various applications such a compact and portable unit might have. As this is a call centre site, of course, I have to look at how it might work in the office environment. My initial thoughts were that a unit like this would enable agents to hot-desk much more easily, as the computer can be easily carried around. It is a very compact unit, which should free up important desk-space. It is reputedly very quiet, though I can’t comment on that. If it is as quiet as I’ve read, it should be perfect for keeping the ambient noise levels to a minimum. Sure, most contact centres have so much going on that even a comparatively noisy machine isn’t obviously intrusive, but I’m a firm believer in doing what we can to keep unnecessary noise at bay.

I can also see applications outwith normal computer use; I haven’t measured, but I reckon that the Mini might just be small enough to fit into the standard audio unit compartment of the average car. Which means that it’s ideal for automotive computing. Just imagine, a black-box flight recorder for your car. In some countries, such things have been trialled for insurance purposes, but a more sophisticated unit such as the Mini, reading in all manner of drive information via its firewire or USB ports, and allowing drivers to archive their trip data using cheap CDR media.

Even the smallest hard-drive option could easily hold a very detailed and easily updated navigation system; GPS locators are relatively inexpensive and could be designed to input ongoing location information via the connections on the back. The DVI output could drive a small LCD panel which could show detailed navigation in unlimited ways - relief information, directories of places to visit/eat/shop, weather information, you name it. The beauty of it being the fact that the baby Mac would have the flexibility and (I’m sure) the reliability to be configured any which way. Couple that to a contemporary mobile telephone and it could be configured to communicate with your Mac iBot to switch on the lights, open the garage door and stream your relaxing playlist from iTunes when you draw close to home.

I know, I know, I’m getting carried away here. However, is any of this so unrealistic? The office idea is very practical - these Mini Macs are apparently very small indeed, inexpensive and because they run OSX, they break away from the mess that is Windows on your typical PC. Support costs are lowered, workers are happier and there would be a marked increase in productivity. Macs are, after all, generally far more reliable and easy to use and live with than PCs. Die-hard PC enthusiasts will no doubt complain, but only because deep down they know I’m right.

So here we have it: the new phase in computing - small, powerful and affordable. We’ve had these before, but only two at a time: powerful is normall big, or expensive.

I doff my hat to you, Apple, for pushing technology forward in such a way that might just make a difference - a positive difference - to the lives of the ordinary person.

John

As everyone will be well aware, it’s almost impossible to live and work in a location which is immune to the often grim consequences of natural disasters and extreme weather.

In the last year, we’ve seen much of the south-eastern US and Caribbean plagued by tropical storms; we’ve seen increased flooding in the UK and of course nobody can nor should forget the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster. As experts keep telling us, some of this is unavoidable (Tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanoes fall into this category) and we’re seeing more and more extreme weather which as a consequence of global warming caused by increased emissions. I wanted to have a brief look at the measures we can take to safeguard our call centre operations against the unseen dangers which can strike at any point. These may be on a macro scale, such as earthquakes, or on a localised scale, such as fires or water damage. This article doesn’t take into account malicious or terrorist acts, but the same rules apply.

Fundamentals

Planning is everything. The overall aim of Disaster Recovery is to have a response to the range of ‘disaster eventualities’. We can think of this as our Emergency Plan.

Such a plan should firstly establish a set of clear objectives. These objectives should be prioritised, and fairly broad in scope. A simple example might include the following (not an exhaustive list):

• Safety of employees;
• Security of physical assets (for example, buildings);
• Protection of non-tangible assets (for example, data);
• Restoration of services
• Restoration of core business functions;

Any incident can be considered as having a timeline, ranging from before the incident (in the case of advance warnings), to the time of the incident itself, and through the minutes, hours and days that follow. A successful recovery plan should cater for effective responses to any advance warnings that might be received. In this period, evacuation may be required, and if possible full backups of mission critical data and operations information should be taken. The priority must always be individual safety above all other concerns, and this priority must outrank any business imperative. However, if immediate danger is not posed it may be prudent to take steps to limit the exposure of services and equipment to the risk.

By their very nature, disasters are serious and should be considered life-threatening unless known to be benign.

However, nature has a habit of catching us by surprise, and what might seem non-threatening can escalate very quickly into something far more serious. This is where careful planning comes into its own. We need to identify the different categories of disaster risk and their nominal timelines, so as to be able to respond effectively and meet the objectives of our plan. Of course, this is no trivial matter, and I’ll save that one for a future article.

Attitude

Rather than go into depth, I’ll put planning to one side and attempt to tackle an altogether less defined beast.

Regardless of how many plans and procedures that an organisation has in place, without the correct attitude toward them, disaster anticipation and recovery will be marginalised and often ignored. Do this at thy peril!

It’s important that everyone understands just how important things like evacuation-drills, backups and building inspections can be. For instance, if the security guard locks the fire exits, no amount of planning is going to help. Sound crazy? Perhaps, but obstructed escape exits is a major problem which should be identified and dealt with promptly. Ensure staff understand what they are to do in the event of a bomb-threat, an earthquake, a fire or a flood. Test those alarms regularly!

Visibility

No plan is of any use if nobody knows about it. It has to be visible to everyone involved. Accessible. Not locked away in a cupboard, or attached at the bottom of a long-forgotten intranet page. The message must be hammered home; take it seriously: it could save your life. Publish these plans publicly, and often. Ensure new-starts are made aware not just of the existence of said plans, but what lies within.

Recovery

The recovery phase must always follow once the primary concerns of individual safety have effectively addressed. A disaster recovery plan should include things like an audit of the current office, systems, people, processes and dependencies. It should include details of assets, and suppliers of those assets. It should anticipate major disasters by establishing a suitable offsite, secure backup plan of business data - and this should be followed strictly. Recovery plans should also aim to facilitate ‘dry-runs’ - important to assess how suitably equipped an organisation is to recover from a major incident.

I hope this has been useful. Most of it is common sense, and of course a quick internet search will doubtless reveal more information which might help in the construction of a suitable plan. It bears repeating that having an effective plan in place is vitally important, so if you don’t have one, create one; if you do have one, revise it.

John

Good morning to you all.

These days, too many of us really put in long hours due to the various pressures of the modern workplace. We’re often there from dusk to dawn, sacrificing our breaks to appear eager, willing and able.

It’s a trap that a great many of us fall into. Which is why I was interested to chance across a reprint of an article by a fellow called Gerald Weinberg. Mr Weinberg maintains that the key to happiness at work is to maintain a positive and balanced personal chemistry. This is an intriguing idea and I reckon there’s a lot to be said for it. Whilst the occasional ‘all-guns-blazing’ burst of effort is often required (such as before a major deadline), the proposition is that such effort becomes the norm and (in a sense) habit-forming.

I urge you all to have a read of the article - it’s mainly common sense, but as many of you will be in a position to set the targets of your workers, I think it’s well worth digesting. After all, we’re all human - only human, that is - and sustained super-human effort is not physiologically beneficial.

John

Hi everyone. This is a very short note just to let you know that CallCentreGurus is now much more accessible as we’ve given it the tab look and feel that it was missing until now.

I’d also like to invite any comments about our site, so that we can fine-tune it and hopefully make it even more useful. Now that we’re well-and-truly on the road, I’ll have more time to add more regular entries. However, please let us know what you think.

Well, here we are once again: Hogmanay. 31st December to all of those of a non-Celtic persuasion. It’s been a fun year and I’m pleased to see our numbers in the main community growing to over 7000. We’ve seen some great discussion and welcomed a good many new ‘faces’ to the community.

I’m hoping that 2005 will be a year of tremendous development within our community; we’ll be changing things around a bit based on the past year’s feedback, and adding some new features. With some luck we’ll be able to build bridges to other industry resources and try to improve what we have already created so that it’s more useful to you all.

Personally, 2005 represents a great challenge. I’m hoping that I can rise to it and bring this site to more people and secure its long term survival. I’m also hoping that it continues to be as useful and relevant to each member’s daily activities as it seems to have been.

To do this, however, we need your support: tell people if you like what we do; spread the word far and wide, and keep coming back. As I’ve said time and again, a community is only as strong as those people who use it, and so we need you all to get involved. Perhaps you haven’t posted before - well, don’t be shy and go ahead - everyone is welcome!

Of course, it goes without saying that we wish all of our members a happy, safe and prosperous new year. Enjoy yourself, and come back soon and tell us all about it!

Best wishes,

John

A week and more has passed since my last entry - I’ve neglected my duties to bring you my rants and raves but as it was Christmas, my time was dedicated to family and friends instead of the log. I’m sure you’ll all understand.

Like most people, I was very saddened to see the events unfolding over the last few days in and around the Indian Ocean. I’m sure I speak for everyone here in saying that my thoughts are with the countless thousands whose lives have ended or will be irrevocably scarred by the tsunami disaster. I’ve not yet established whether any CallCentreGurus readers have been directly affected but I am hoping that we are all safe and accounted for.

I think it is prudent to urge each and every member to help in any way that they can; my wife and I have donated via Oxfam, and if you haven’t already donated, please do so by clicking on the link and giving what you can.

It is at times like these that we as human beings are humbled by the sheer power and authority that nature can exert. It is awe-inspiring yet scary, and it is a small blessing that such catastrophies are few enough that we feel we can let down our guards. However, nature, as demonstrated by volcanos, tornados, climate systems and of course earthquakes, must not be under-estimated.

So, though there’s nothing I can say nor do which will help (other than perhaps convincing the odd reader to donate), I just wanted to say a few words to express my sadness and concern for those affected.

John

My background is computers. I’ve been noodling on them since I was a lad, back in around 1984. So that’s twenty years, give or take. I wouldn’t go as far as to say I was a veteran, but I can remember many of the computers of that time, and the feeling of excitement as I took my first tentative steps on the new frontier.

That was then and this is now; twenty years gone past and many if not all of the computer and software houses of 1984 are now no more. With a few notable (and very successful exceptions) we have lost a lot of the colour and competition which used to typify the industry.

I recall reading about a revolutionary new, single box computer with a thing called a mouse and sophisticated graphics and a new way of doing things. I recall it was called Macintosh, and as a young lad I wanted one. It did, however, take twenty years of working my way via a convoluted route to finally own one of these Macintoshes. Twenty years of grief, frustration and exasperation. Mainly condensed into the latter fifteen years of this period when I backed the IBM PC.

Retrospect being a cruel mistress, it is only now I realise how much of my life has been wasted using poorly designed computers running inadequate, unreliable operating systems. Yes, stand up Microsoft, that’s you to whom I refer. You see, it was only earlier this year that I finally found the planets in alignment and the circumstances right to acquire my first Mac.

The John of 1984 would, of course, have been astonished at the compact wonder that is the Powerbook 12. Since selling my hulking Dell Inspiron 8000 back in July, I’ve been almost 100% Apple, and generally not looking back. The elegance and thought that has gone into this little device is somewhat special; the Dell just could never compete.

However, no matter how good the hardware, what matters is the quality of the software that you choose to run on it, and in this regard the Apple is so far removed from the world of Windows that I’ve coined it a ‘colour TV moment’. Think about the day you finally got a colour TV, with push-button chann