What is a MCCC ?

[djdaley]

Hello,

I am looking for a definition.

I am currently in a forum, discussing Multi Channel Contact Centres, as a progression from Call Centres (Read: Path = Call - Contact - Multi-Channel Contact).

The definition of a MCCC is currently a hot topic (as is the definition of a contact centre versus a call centre).

I am looking for your thoughts on defining these entities.

I have read the Cleveland whitepapers, looked at numerous resources and am fully versed with mediums of contact etc, and can see that there is an obvious distinguishing factor of delivery channels between these operations, yet I am now hearing another argument for differentiation based on caller experience? (ie - I may have phone / fax / email / chat in my centre, yet my caller only ever uses phone, therefore am I a call centre, contact or multi contact? Which perception should drive definition?)


Any thoughts would be great!

[mikael]

I would have to ask: Why is the distinction important in the first place?

Periodically, new buzzwords erupt and have their day of popularity. As a customer, I couldn't care less what fancy name the company assigns to its centre or program -- my interest is very clear. "Quickly connect me with someone who can solve my problem and make me feel good about my relationship with the company."

I don't care if I'm talking to a tech, agent, account executive or Customer Relationship Management Engineer. The only channel or path that counts is the one I want to use right now. If my problem got quickly resolved and the company made me feel valued in the process, I will be motivated to tell people about my experience, suggesting that they buy from this company too. If it didn't, I'll tend to tell others about that fact too.

Companies can brag to their heart's content about their whizz-bang access channels and stats -- and none of it will matter to their customers. It might impress other centre managers, the marketroids might try to use it in their pitches, but there is no evidence suggesting that such results in any increase in sales to my knowledge.

[djdaley]

Thanks Mikael,

I agree that customer perception should drive business initiatives, and for the one contact, technology / channels etc become increasingly irrelevant.

The validity of my question still stands. This is outside the scope of customer interaction when we start to talk about setting up a centre.

Think large centre with a broadband market, from IT to finance and medical as well as social services.

The definition is wanted so that these concepts can be easily explained to people who will be financing this project (non call centre executives!)

[Kepe]

The benefits of "MCCC" as you call it are several. If you like financing of a system that support MCCC I'm sure you know some of them.

Better Agent utilization

Unified reporting

Single point of integration

Single virtual queue

Better control of resources, specially if you put Work Force Management SW on top for all channels.

If you send a email from a web form and later call the same contact center, the agent may se there are a pending email from you if there is a unified contact database. I think MCCC are good from all perspectives (customer, IT, agent, managers) except perhaps cost of implementing.

From my experience, treating all interactions in a single real-time environment is the only way to go. Still if you just integrate selfservice, email and inbound voice you come almost all the way. We do not use the features for SMS, Chat, IP-telephony even if we got them. Fax is easy to gateway in to any email management sw. I think it's important to make sure the system deliver all interactions to the same desktop application; this is the only true MCCC way and cuts agent training time. Using a single "softphone" with support for all channels also let the agent and managers know exactly on that time is spent.

I guess many lack the insentive to implement a single interaction management system because phone is still king and email is often treated without priority or with separate teams.

[stretch]

Kepe,

Do the agents in your call center handle phonecalls, e-mails and faxes interchangeably? I.e. are you really using the virtual queueing as it was designed to be utilized?

I have yet to see this setup implemented in a contact center. The argument that mixing inputs increases productivity does not really hold water in phone queues with occupancy running at 85 % (burn out); also, handling e-mails and faxes requires different skill sets than answering phone calls.

Anyone out there with experience - good or bad?

[Alan Clayton]

If your phone occupancy is really at 85%, you need to rethink the staffing...

As to experiences with mixing, the answer is that your agents CAN do those things if you
a: hire for that

b: train for it

c: provide feedback

[djdaley]

What makes you think that 85% occupancy indicates burnout.

Ideally, occupancy can sit between 82-90% before you need to think about invoking occupancy ceiling paramaters into your workforce management tools.

[Alan Clayton]

That depends on the definition of occupancy. Some definitions include available time, but if you are at 85% of the time ON THE PHONE on average, many times, you will be in the 100% range...

Good for some things, and burnout is definitely one of those...

Not for all, of course but in the long run, thats a high figure...

Again though, if you take certain things out of the equation, it might be okay... some people take break time out of the equation.... some leave it in...

Hard to really say without knowing that...