The present invention relates to systems and methods for managing data. In particular, but not by way of limitation, the present invention relates to systems and methods for categorizing, collecting and/or analyzing customer service data.
Customer service often requires quick, consistent responses to customer inquiries. In the not so distant past, live service agents responded to most customer inquiries by phone. Phone responses are extremely expensive, and with the spread of the internet, live agents began to respond to customer inquiries by cheaper methods such as email and chat programs.
Live agents, whether responding by phone, email or chat program, remain important for many businesses. Companies seeking to further reduce their costs, however, replaced or supplemented live agents with automated systems such as virtual agents and interactive voice response (IVR) systems. Automated systems respond to routine customer inquiries based on a decision tree and/or active logic. These systems are often referred to as “response systems.”
All of these different response systems generally generate some performance metrics by which they can be evaluated. For example, a phone response system can report the number of calls received, average number of minutes required to respond to each call, number of calls abandoned before being reached, etc. Other response systems generally report similar metrics.
Different response systems are generally not integrated, and the different reporting metrics are integrated poorly, if at all. A customer with an email response system, a voice response system, and an automated agent could receive three different sets of metrics and may have no way to evaluate the combined performance of all three systems. Further, these disparate response systems do not enable a consistent response strategy for addressing user inquiries. A phone operator, for example, could generate a different response to a particular inquiry than would an automated system. Such response inconsistencies make integrating metrics from different response systems difficult.
Although present response systems are functional, they are not satisfactory. A system and method are needed to address the shortfalls of present technology and to provide other new and innovative features. For example, systems and methods are needed to better provide an overall or holistic view, of a company's interaction with its customers. Similarly, a system and method are needed to provide a consistent response strategy across all types of response systems.
One embodiment of the technology disclosed herein provides an overall, or holistic view, of an enterprise's interaction with its customers. These embodiments can also provide a holistic view of other types of interactions. In one particular embodiment, a system collects and aggregates information related to user inquiries and/or responses generated by different types of response systems. Such an embodiment could collect data about phone response system activities and aggregate that information with data about an automated response system activities. Other embodiments collect and aggregate information related to customer information, contact resolutions and other information. Other embodiments of the disclosed technology generate reports based on aggregated information and/or generate recommendations to address problems with the individual response systems or the overall strategy for responding to customer inquiries.
These and other embodiments are more fully described in the Detailed Description section. It is to be understood, however, that there is no intention to limit the invention to the forms described in this Summary of the Invention or in the Detailed Description. One skilled in the art can recognize that there are numerous modifications, equivalents and alternative constructions that fall within the spirit and scope of the invention as expressed in the claims.
Various objects and advantages and a more complete understanding of the present invention are apparent and more readily appreciated by reference to the following Detailed Description and to the appended claims when taken in conjunction with the accompanying Drawings wherein:
Referring now to the drawings, where like or similar elements are designated with identical reference numerals throughout the several views, and referring in particular to
This version of the response center 105 includes several individual response systems: phone 125, chat 130, email 135, automated agent 140, and interactive voice response (IVR) 145. The response center 105 could also include other systems for communicating with customers or could include fewer response systems than illustrated.
Each response system can retrieve a recommended response to a customer inquiry from the global knowledge database 150, which can include decision trees and/or logic for compiling responses to customer inquiries. The decision trees/logic can be used by all types of response systems. If necessary, a response system can also retrieve customer data from the customer information database 155 or other data from a third party database (not shown) to generate its responses. For example, when the customer 120 sends an email requesting information on how to cancel an order, a live customer agent at the email response center can search the global knowledge database 150 for the proper response. The agent can then include that response, or at least some portion of the response, in the email to the customer 120. If the same request for information originated by phone, the phone agent could pull the same response, or a similar response template, from the global knowledge database 150 and use it as a transcript for talking with the customer 120. Thus, the same customer inquiry can be answered generally in the same way regardless of the customer's method of communicating the inquiry.
Response information included in the global knowledge database 150 can be categorized and/or coded to aid in retrieval and identification of proper responses and in record accumulation. The order cancellation response, for example, could be coded as response number “29.” Each of the response systems, regardless of type, can generate an order cancellation response based on response number “29.” Further, when any response system generates an order cancellation response, the response system can provide the proper code, “29,” to the analysis engine or analysis database 160.
When a response system provides a response to a customer 120, it also stores an indication of the generating response system in the analysis database 160. For example, when the automated agent 140 generates an order cancellation response, it can store a “29” in the analysis database 160 along with an identifier for the automated agent. Other data can also be stored in the analysis database 160, including time stamps, network statistics, user data, etc.
In one embodiment, the analysis engine 165 can retrieve data from the analysis database 160 and report on the activities of the various response systems. One embodiment of such a report is shown in
Referring now to
Referring now to
For each response to a customer inquiry, the response identifier is determined and stored in, for example, the analysis database. (Blocks 190 and 195.) An indication of the response system that generated the response can also be stored with the response identifier. In some embodiments, the indication can be as simple as increasing a counter associated with both the response and response system.
Referring now to
Referring now to
Using this type of overlaid graph, an analyst can determine what type of issues customers are raising and how those issues are being resolved. In particular, an analyst can determine if particular categories of questions arise often or if a particular category of questions is resolved too often by expensive means such as the phone response system.
Each portion of the overlaid graph can link to other graphs or additional information. For example, if an analyst selected the “order status” category in the inner chart, then a new graph could be displayed showing more detail. A typical graph is shown in
Referring now to
The analysis engine, or some other logic system, can retrieve information from each response system relating to the number of responses provided for each category and/or subcategory. (Block 235.) For example, the analysis engine can collect all data related to responses in the category “order status,” subcategory “modify,” and further subcategory “vendor 1.” (Shown in
The overlaid graph and/or the underlying data can be used to generate recommendations to improve the response center or individual response systems. (Block 245.) Three typical recommendations include: change a business process, enhance the handling of a customer contact, and automate the response to the customer. Notably, one embodiment of the present invention provides an iterative method for improving a response center. For example, if the reports indicate that a particular inquiry is being too often handled by email, the automated agent could be modified to better handle that category of inquiry, hopefully reducing overall costs.
In conclusion, the present invention provides, among other things, a system and method for improving response centers. Those skilled in the art can readily recognize that numerous variations and substitutions may be made in the invention, its use and its configuration to achieve substantially the same results as achieved by the embodiments described herein. Accordingly, there is no intention to limit the invention to the disclosed exemplary forms. Many variations, modifications and alternative constructions fall within the scope and spirit of the disclosed invention as expressed in the claims.
This application claims priority from, and is a continuation of, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/825,645, filed Apr. 15, 2004 to Vos et al., and entitled Method and Apparatus for Managing Customer Data. The disclosure of that application is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3829088 | Pahlas | Aug 1974 | A |
4451985 | Pullman | Jun 1984 | A |
D276626 | Lockwood | Dec 1984 | S |
4567359 | Lockwood | Jan 1986 | A |
RE32115 | Lockwood et al. | Apr 1986 | E |
D286956 | Lockwood | Dec 1986 | S |
4793810 | Beasley, Jr. | Dec 1988 | A |
5002491 | Abrahamson et al. | Mar 1991 | A |
5059127 | Lewis et al. | Oct 1991 | A |
5204813 | Samph et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
5208869 | Holt | May 1993 | A |
5211563 | Haga et al. | May 1993 | A |
5251268 | Colley et al. | Oct 1993 | A |
5261823 | Kurokawa | Nov 1993 | A |
5267865 | Lee et al. | Dec 1993 | A |
5294229 | Hartzell et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5302132 | Corder | Apr 1994 | A |
5309355 | Lockwood | May 1994 | A |
5310349 | Daniels et al. | May 1994 | A |
5337141 | Egli et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5397865 | Park | Mar 1995 | A |
5441415 | Lee et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5444774 | Friedes | Aug 1995 | A |
5458494 | Krohn et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5513991 | Reynolds et al. | May 1996 | A |
5513994 | Kershaw et al. | May 1996 | A |
5576951 | Lockwood | Nov 1996 | A |
5594791 | Szlam et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5630025 | Dolby et al. | May 1997 | A |
5636036 | Ashbey | Jun 1997 | A |
5708798 | Lynch et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5710887 | Chelliah et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5721845 | James et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5727950 | Cook et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5743746 | Ho et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5745765 | Paseman | Apr 1998 | A |
5781914 | Stork et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5788504 | Rice et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5788508 | Lee et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5825651 | Gupta et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5827070 | Kershaw et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5844554 | Geller et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5877966 | Morris et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5904485 | Siefert | May 1999 | A |
5907706 | Brodsky et al. | May 1999 | A |
5909589 | Parker et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5918217 | Maggioncalda et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5920848 | Schutzer et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5947747 | Walker et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5956709 | Xue | Sep 1999 | A |
5963953 | Cram et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5974446 | Sonnenreich et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5978648 | George et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6002854 | Lynch et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6012051 | Sammon, Jr. et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6032129 | Greef et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6035283 | Rofrano | Mar 2000 | A |
6055569 | O'Brien et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6070142 | McDonough et al. | May 2000 | A |
6091930 | Mortimer et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6167255 | Kennedy et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6178239 | Kishinsky et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6201948 | Cook et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6237035 | Himmel et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6246752 | Bscheider et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6321209 | Pasquali | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6343329 | Landgraf et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6356284 | Manduley et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6381325 | Hanson | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6427063 | Cook et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6658432 | Alavi et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6701514 | Haswell et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6754486 | Cox et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6760727 | Schroeder et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6829348 | Schroeder et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6928156 | Book et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6959078 | Elibacher et al. | Oct 2005 | B1 |
6959080 | Dezonno et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
7003079 | McCarthy et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7027586 | Bushey et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7069231 | Cinarkaya et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7069271 | Fadel et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7899732 | Van Beaumont et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
8091117 | Williams et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
20010032140 | Hoffman | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20020083067 | Tamayo et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020106070 | Elsey et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020146668 | Burgin et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030179876 | Fox et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20040088167 | Sartini | May 2004 | A1 |
20040190707 | Ljubicich | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040264670 | Flores et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050052284 | Schmidtberg et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050086239 | Swann et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20060062376 | Pickford | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060161470 | Smith et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20080095355 | Mahalaha et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20090163183 | O'Donoghue et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20120017261 | Lim | Jan 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2344639 | Feb 2001 | CA |
0 496 492 | Jul 1992 | EP |
0 829 996 | Mar 1998 | EP |
WO 9744767 | Nov 1997 | WO |
WO 9832107 | Jul 1998 | WO |
WO 9901826 | Jan 1999 | WO |
WO 0029977 | May 2000 | WO |
WO 0109745 | Feb 2001 | WO |
Entry |
---|
A+dvantage—Worldware (1995) Jostens Learning Brochure. |
Applied Physics (1995) EduStar America Inc. Brochure. |
Aqua Venture (1995) EduStar America Inc. Brochure. |
“Arithmetic,” Basic Education Software Tool (BEST) Degem Systems. |
Attardi, G. et al, “Web-based Configuration Assistants,” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, London, vol. 12 (4) (Sep. 1998) pp. 321-331, XP002902516. |
Barron, “Authoring-Systems Software for Computer-Based Training,” Education Technology publication, New Jerswy (1994) pp. 75-92. |
U.S. Appl. No. 60/146,515, filed Jul. 30, 1999, Schroeder. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/632,948, filed Aug. 4, 2000, Schulte. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/291,562, filed Dec. 1, 2005, Shomo. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/686,812, filed Mar. 15, 2007, Irwin et al. |
Basic Electronics (1995) DEGEM Systems Brochure. |
Best (1995) DEGEM Systems Brochure. |
Brader, “Authoring-Systems Software for Computer-Based Training,” Educational Technology Publications, New Jersey (1994) pp. 45-60. |
Burke, “Authoring-Systems Software for Computer-Based Training,” Educational Technology Publications, New Jersey (1994) pp. 123-141. |
Carbonell, IEEE Transactions on Man-Machine Systems, vol. 11 (1970) pp. 190-203. |
Cook, A Briefing for Buyers, Asymtote Inc., Boston (1989). |
Educating Jessica's Generation (1995) Jostens Learning Brochure. |
EduStar Mathematics (1995) Innovative Technologies in Education Brochure. |
Fall, III, “Authoring-Systems Software for Computer-Based Training,” Educational Technology Publications, New Jersey (1994) pp. 143-164. |
Guttman et al., “Agent-mediated electronic commerce: a survey,” The Knowledge Engineering Review, vol. 13(2) (1998) pp. 147-159. |
Hello Blue Planet (1995) EduStar America Inc. Brochure. |
Hibbard, J. “Assembly Online: The Web is changing mass production into mass customization,” Information Week Online: News and Reviews, www.informationweek.com/729/build.html , Accessed Oct. 30, 2001. |
Home Reach (1995) Computer Curriculum Corporation Brochure. |
Keller, J. Applied Behavior Analysis, vol. 1 (1968) pp. 79-89. |
Kimball, Educational Leadership, vol. 53 (1995) pp. 54-56. |
Kulik et al, J. Educational Computing Research, vol. 2 (1986) pp. 235-252. |
Kulik et al., J. Educational Psychology, vol. 75 (1983) pp. 29-26. |
Lamb, Authoring-Systems Software for Computer-Based Training, Educational Technology Publications, New Jersey (1994) pp. 24-44. |
Lansford, W., “Real-time interactive sales and services across the Internet: Optimizing the customer experience,” Call center Solution s, vol. 17(5) (Nov. 1998) pp. 54-59. |
Learning First—New Edition (1995) Jostens Learning Brochure. |
Lesser, ACM Computing. Surveys, vol. 27 (1995) pp. 340-342. |
Lindsley, Teaching Exceptional Children, vol. 22 (1990) pp. 353-359. |
Maes, Communications of the ACM, vol. 37 (1994) pp. 31-40. |
Meet Lightspan, Lightspan Brochure (1996). |
Office Action dated Feb. 27, 2004 for U.S. Appl. No. 09/559,837. |
Office Action dated Feb. 24, 2004 for U.S. Appl. No. 09/632,948. |
O'Keefe et al, “Web-based Customer Decision Support Systems,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 41(3) (1998) pp. 71-78. |
Osin, Proc. 4th Jerusalem Conference on Information Technology (1984) pp. 418-424. |
Pasik, A.J. “The Software Investor,” The Configuration Invasion (Sep. 24, 1998). |
PEHA, Educational Leadership, vol. 53 (1995) pp. 18-25. |
Plato Learning System, TRO Learning, Inc. Brochure (1995). |
Poleretzky, Z. et al., “The Call Center & e-Commerce Convergence,” Dialog ABI/Inform®, XP002949410 (2001). |
Sage Talk: Designing a Tool for Designing Successful Web-based Social Agents (Paper ID 254), Conference 2000, Month 1-2, 2000. |
Sherry and Komoski, eds., The IIS Report (1990) pp. 3-6, 21-24, 52, 256-260. |
Vaas, L., “Service Sites Buckle Up Configurators,” PCWeek Online, www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,402639,00.html, accessed Oct. 30, 2001. |
Writing Expedition, Ideal Learning Brochure (1994). |
Office Action dated Jun. 1, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/686,812. |
Office Action dated Oct. 17, 2011 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/686,812. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 10825645 | Apr 2004 | US |
Child | 13087815 | US |