When you understand the potential of Software as a Service (SaaS), it is easy to envisage a future where all business applications are delivered through the cloud.

The promise of increased flexibility, integration with technologies that will increasingly power call centres such as IP (Internet Protocol), social and cloud networks, and the removal of installation/upgrades/support issues, should be irresistible for customer service operations.

Yet although uptake has been good, SaaS hasn’t taken over as dramatically as it might have been predicted.  Rumblings emanating from projects where the promise of cost reductions have not materialised, most often caused by hidden maintenance and licensing charges, have created a level of scepticism about SaaS. 

RightNow Technologies has made a bold move to right this perception, by creating a ‘Bill of Rights’ for SaaS, which it has urged other vendors to sign in the name of improving the transparency and image of the delivery of software through the cloud.

It is a bold but wholly necessary move to make.  The initial shock of discovering that RightNow is willing to forgo a large percentage of its revenue stream by reducing maintenance costs is quickly replaced by the thought that RightNow has put itself in a game winning position, offsetting the initial income drop off with a virtual guarantee of growth. 

If it had limited its pledge to its own business, RightNow would have turned heads.  Yet by allowing others to follow its code, it lays out a challenge that its competitors will find impossible to ignore, but may not be able to keep pace with.

More importantly, from the customer standpoint, it is only good news.  Transparent SaaS with proper, accountable service levels and the ‘rollover‘ of unused services, may just make those of us who have been in the industry for sometime forget the bitter taste and lost opportunities of CRM (Customer Relationship Management.) 

Myself and the other CCF writers are quick to point out that good service delivery can never be guaranteed through technology alone.  But businesses which have robust, customisable and efficient systems, backed by vendors who have pledged a fair deal, will certainly find their goals much easier to meet.

Call centres should hop on the Tory Party’s hippy bus if they want to see the light.

An already confused political landscape became even more puzzling last week, as the privatisation-adoring Tory party announced plans to create public sector co-ops, which sounds less like the legacy of an Iron Lady and more like the late night camp-fire ramblings of a hippy commune. 

The broad idea is to allow hospitals and other public service bodies to self-govern, acting as non-profit making co-operatives.  The thinking is that the responsibility will help improve performance and offer a more localised service, giving workers and managers an incentive to work harder to deliver more for less.

It’s all theoretical, think-tank stage stuff at this stage of course, but there is important issue that this approach might help to solve: customer service apathy.

In the private sector, lack of service focus manifests itself in lost customers, lack of repeat business and a constant (and expensive struggle) to find new business.  The solution is to incentivise staff by creating targets and rewards based on how they treat customers.

However, certain business types find it harder to justify creating a positive customer experience. Internal customer support is one; many IT support helpdesks for example deliver surly, impersonal service because there is no reason for them to improve - the disaffected staff member cannot defect or use a different supplier. 

The same dynamic occurs in the public sector, the only choice for a resident angered by tardy refuse collection is to move to a different borough - a level of consumer choice that all but the most ardent service stalwart would take.

The current political solution is to create service related targets, with debatable results. It’s a logical idea, but the reality is that strangled by red tape, audits and ever moving performance aims, most public services are never going to replicate the kind of excellent service that a well organised, focused private business can offer. 

Why not remove these shackles and let the public sector feel the joy of freedom that creating a co-op would offer?  Peace.

Small groups of people offering personalised, localised support is the future of customer service.  James West worries what this might mean for call centres.

We used to hear a lot about technology making the world smaller, how it would allow people to interact on an intimate level without the requirement of long distance travel.

Indeed for some time, technology has been weaving its globalisation magic, allowing businesses to serve customers from any location.  The problem is that from a service perspective, this is often leads to an impersonal, processing approach to dealing with people.  The notion of a query being handled at the lowest possible price by an offshore call centre represents the clear antithesis of the kind of positive, personal interaction that customers seek when speaking to suppliers.

The news that Cheshire Building Society is decentralising it’s customer service by using a virtual network to send calls to its 42 branches is an example of technology being used in a positive service sense. The plan put forward by Cheshire will see calls routed to the branch closest to and most appropriate to the caller, allowing staff to build relationships with customers and use their local knowledge to understand the issues presented.  If it works well, such a set-up would mean that customers may even reach a familiar staff member when they dial the call centre - in contrast to the typical bank call which ignores proximity and treats all callers in the same way.

Will this model be replicated elsewhere?  Will we see the application of virtual, global technologies actually leading to the rise of localised service, the likes of which hasn’t been seen in the digital age?  Ian Pearson, a former BT futurologist and now Futurizon md, thinks so.  Whereas once, he envisaged a time where technology would allow us to work in a wholly disparate manner, with video conferencing replacing the need for face-to-face contact, Pearson now sees business increasingly being carried out on a sofa, in a coffee shop.  Efforts in future will focus on making technology, which has in many ways placed barrier in the way of relationships, less intrusive. 

Such a movement does present a worrying scenario for call centres.  If the future is about local, decentralised service, surely the call centre itself become redundant?  In part yes, but the movement to create smaller, easier to manage call centres has been happening for some time.  We will however see more homeworking and virtual set-ups similar to the one created by Cheshire.  Call centres will of course exist, we just may not recognise them as such.  It isn’t eradication of the call centre, it’s revolution.

Call centres can help pay their way by driving through sales, but an outdated view of the selling process means most are bound to fail.

The notion that sales staff shouldn’t be burdened with customer support tasks, and that service professionals must avoid selling, is a luxury and distinction that most businesses have been forced to abandon as competition in the market has intensified.

There has been resistance to the idea of selling within call centres.  Although anyone can see the clear business logic of offsetting the call centre cost base, it is the application, not the theory, that means plans are so often doomed to failure.  However, it is possible to drive sales through a call centre, but a different approach is needed.

Traditionally, organisations have tried to shoehorn selling into the call centre, adding to the already high stress levels.  The most obvious problem with this approach is that you make staff - already overwhelmed with targets and responsibilities - really angry.  An even bigger problem than the added workload is that most service staff will argue they don’t possess the skills to sell - that’s why they chose a service-orientated role in the first place.

These agents, to a point, are correct.  The personality and skills possessed by the old-school, hard-nosed sales person are very different to the empathy and listening skills displayed by top agents.  However, it is precisely the abilities of this latter group that make them the perfect sales staff of the future.

As hinted at earlier, the notion of what makes a great sales person is changing.  Take a traditional high street electrical retailer.  Forgive the stereotypes, as I’m sure there are many capable and intelligent staff employed in such establishments, but the model driven by the bean-counters - commission, commission, commission - means that the customers often gets a very unpleasant buying experience.  

Compare and contrast with a retailer such as Apple or John Lewis.  Although they do operate remuneration schemes based upon performance, both of these examples put the same, if not more emphasis, on the service experience.  It may appear counter-intuitive for a retailer - surely they must drive sales - but the model makes sense if you consider it for a moment.  Businesses that strive for happy customers inspire loyalty, which mean that customers come back and bring their friends with them. 

Customers buy from people they trust, they spend money with businesses that help them even when they are not making a purchase.  Once service staff have reached this stage, they will be able to talk about additional products that may interest the customer, and as long as they are not encouraged to launch into a hard sale because of a target hanging over them, their customers will happily listen to what they have to say.

The point is that by removing the driver of commission and targeting staff on service quality rather than sales can ironically lead to more sales.  The businesses brave enough to take this step will be helping rewrite the rules of what call centre sales are about and will be richly rewarded in the long-term.

Cost cutting or investment in supporting business objectives; the type of call centre you work for could decide whether your job is safe.

The news that 1,500 Shop Direct call centre workers are set to lose their jobs is a microcosm of the entire customer service industry, illustrating the harsh realities the call centre industry must confront in the next few years.

First of all, sincere commiseration to those impacted by the staff cuts, with thousands of families facing an uncertain future at a time when the economy is still struggling to expand. The sheer volume of job losses in this example is hard to contemplate, as is the notion that the shift from customers ordering over the phone to online purchasing has been so quick and absolute that a business is able to shed 1500 workers overnight. There could be a subtext at work here and the proclamation of becoming an online business could be a smokescreen to cover the true reasons for the job cuts.

But although the Shop Direct example is an extreme one, the stark reality for all call centre workers is that headcounts are likely to be gradually eroded over time. Shop Direct is the perfect illustration of how volume-led transactions can be competently handled by automation, at a heavily reduced cost compared to the expense of employing people. It is not just shopping that web-based systems will increasingly manage, but basic service requests (password resets, requests for duplicate bills etc.) and information searches - the bulk of the average call centre workload - can also be automated. The end result is inevitably that the employment market will shrink. However, there are two ways in which this dynamic can be utilised. The first course of action means that staff are shed and not replaced. It is a viable option; if the automation is well implemented and maintained, call centres can operate with fewer staff. However, it would be easy for standards to slip and the lack of human interaction and regular monitoring of the customer experience could erode standards.

The other option is to retain staff, but change their focus from transaction processing to customer relationship builders. This entails retraining and retargeting staff, with an eye towards more meaningful metrics such as customer lifetime value and propensity of customers to recommend the business to others. Such an approach would see the call centre supporting business objectives and contributing directly to its success, which will make the case for continuing funding much stronger, safeguarding against further job losses.

The sad fact is that the business who take this tougher, long term investment option will be in the minority, meaning tough times ahead for call centre workers.