March of the Robots into Your Call Center

Artificial IntelligenceSuleman Din writes that “Bots” beat humans when it comes to Honesty in spite of great training and our best intentions. Humans can be impacted by psychological and physiological factors that don’t impact Artificial Intelligence, so we are prone to “go off script.” Something an automated contact center agent would not do.

Read Suleman’s latest article for HERE

In highly regulated industries like Insurance and Financial Services, having agents freelance responses to customers is dangerous. With Artificial Intelligence in place, not only will the proper scripting and answers be provided without deviation, but the answers and responses are testable by courts and other regulators.

Use of Artificial Agents is expected to also lessen the requirement for Quality Analysis on an agent by agent basis. AI combined with high performing Speech Analytics applications will soon put an end to the need for large human based QA departments. The AI system will provide the same answers to customers consistently so Quality Control should be less expensive and more considered more comprehensive with much fewer risk factors for misleading or misanswering clients.


It pays to watch your Vendors closely

eyebrow-clipart-a_pair_of_blue_eyes_with_eyebrows_0521-1102-0513-1231_SMUHere is a case that clearly illustrates the importance of having tight and ongoing oversight over the operations of your third party vendors and Business Process providers. If a third party is answering or making calls on behalf of your company’s product or service, this is very important to your company’s future.

A recent decision out of North Carolina has given more insight into when a company may be on the hook for the actions of its independent contractors. In Krakauer v. Dish Network, LLC, Dish Network employed the services of Satellite Systems Network (SSN) to make telemarketing calls to sell Dish services. After finding that SSN failed to comply with the “Do-Not-Call” provisions of the TCPA, the Court ruled that Dish had also willfully and knowingly violated the provisions, and tripled the damage verdict from $20.5 million dollars to $63.1 million dollars. read the full story here

Occasional visits to the vendor are never enough. Depending on the size of the operation, I might suggest a full-time presence at the Vendor’s site. Beyond reviewing and signing off on all operational procedures and scripting, a major percentage of calls should be reviewed on a regular basis. Call audio and PC screen video should be accessible by the parent company at will from any location and it should be someone’s job to ensure the highest quality standards are being met and that your team is managing the vendor as if they were your employees because, as made clear in this court’s decision, everyone is liable for misconduct.

ROI on the investment your company makes toward legal and regulatory compliance is hard to quantify until it saves you from a 63 million dollar verdict.