Monday, April 23, 2007
"What, even me?"
As I type this, there's a major DSL service outage in parts of southwestern Ontario. It appears to be an issue on Bell's end, although I don't have any specific information about the problem right now, so it's possible I could be wrong.
Naturally, to save time for everyone, we've got a recording up so that when people call in to the tech support centre, they hear that there are significant system-wide issues. Nevertheless, some people still hear the recording, and wait to speak to an agent directly. Some of them have good questions, but a lot of them don't. Here's a sampling of some of the worse ones:
Caller: "I understand that there's a DSL problem?"
Me: "Yes, that's correct."
Caller: "Is it even affecting corporate customers?"
No, sir, we value you so much that your DSL service is exempted from the problem affecting possibly thousands of people all around you.
Caller: "I don't think I have the same problem, because I don't have DSL, I have high speed."
Me: "OK... DSL is a type of high speed service. Do you know what kind of high speed you have?"
Caller: "High speed."
Me: "Alright, can I please have your phone number so that I can bring up your account?"
Caller: "xxx-xxx-xxxx."
Me: "It looks like you do actually have DSL service with us, so unfortunately your service would be affected by the problem that we're experiencing."
Caller: "No, I don't think it is."
Me: "OK, why's that?"
Caller: "I dunno."
Yeah, I'm going to act on that information and identify your problem... hey look, it's a PEBKAC issue!
Caller: "Do you know how long it'll be down?"
Me: "No, unfortunately. As best as we can tell right now, it appears to be an issue on Bell's end, so we're waiting on them to let us know exactly what's wrong and when it'll be back up."
Caller: "How long will that be?"
Me: "I'm not sure. Since it appears to be an issue outside of our network and outside of our immediate control, we have to wait till Bell lets us know."
Caller: "Do you know when they'll tell you?"
Me: "I would imagine that they'll let us know as soon as they've identified the issue."
Caller: "When will that be?"
Me: "I have no idea, sir. Right now we have heard nothing definite, including an estimate on when we will hear something definite."
Caller: "Oh."
Hey, at least after the third time, he understood.
Caller: "So when you say that there's no estimated time for the issue being resolved, are you talking an hour, a couple of hours, a few days, a month, what?"
Me: "We're saying that we have no estimated time."
I mean, what do you expect?
Caller: "I heard your message, but I wondered if the problem is still happening?"
Me: "Yes, it is."
Caller: "OK, thanks!"
Even though that's a very easy call, in some ways it's the most frustrating, because that person waited on hold to confirm what our recorded message has just told them. They've acknowledged that they've heard the message, but they're talking to an agent... why? I'm not sure. We're basically telling them the same thing that the message did.
Here's the gist of it: if there's a recording up, there's a reason for it. It's going to be informing callers about any important information that might save them some time. If you're calling for a different reason, then you should definitely wait and talk to an agent and get things resolved, but if not, why waste our time? And yours?
Naturally, to save time for everyone, we've got a recording up so that when people call in to the tech support centre, they hear that there are significant system-wide issues. Nevertheless, some people still hear the recording, and wait to speak to an agent directly. Some of them have good questions, but a lot of them don't. Here's a sampling of some of the worse ones:
Caller: "I understand that there's a DSL problem?"
Me: "Yes, that's correct."
Caller: "Is it even affecting corporate customers?"
No, sir, we value you so much that your DSL service is exempted from the problem affecting possibly thousands of people all around you.
Caller: "I don't think I have the same problem, because I don't have DSL, I have high speed."
Me: "OK... DSL is a type of high speed service. Do you know what kind of high speed you have?"
Caller: "High speed."
Me: "Alright, can I please have your phone number so that I can bring up your account?"
Caller: "xxx-xxx-xxxx."
Me: "It looks like you do actually have DSL service with us, so unfortunately your service would be affected by the problem that we're experiencing."
Caller: "No, I don't think it is."
Me: "OK, why's that?"
Caller: "I dunno."
Yeah, I'm going to act on that information and identify your problem... hey look, it's a PEBKAC issue!
Caller: "Do you know how long it'll be down?"
Me: "No, unfortunately. As best as we can tell right now, it appears to be an issue on Bell's end, so we're waiting on them to let us know exactly what's wrong and when it'll be back up."
Caller: "How long will that be?"
Me: "I'm not sure. Since it appears to be an issue outside of our network and outside of our immediate control, we have to wait till Bell lets us know."
Caller: "Do you know when they'll tell you?"
Me: "I would imagine that they'll let us know as soon as they've identified the issue."
Caller: "When will that be?"
Me: "I have no idea, sir. Right now we have heard nothing definite, including an estimate on when we will hear something definite."
Caller: "Oh."
Hey, at least after the third time, he understood.
Caller: "So when you say that there's no estimated time for the issue being resolved, are you talking an hour, a couple of hours, a few days, a month, what?"
Me: "We're saying that we have no estimated time."
I mean, what do you expect?
Caller: "I heard your message, but I wondered if the problem is still happening?"
Me: "Yes, it is."
Caller: "OK, thanks!"
Even though that's a very easy call, in some ways it's the most frustrating, because that person waited on hold to confirm what our recorded message has just told them. They've acknowledged that they've heard the message, but they're talking to an agent... why? I'm not sure. We're basically telling them the same thing that the message did.
Here's the gist of it: if there's a recording up, there's a reason for it. It's going to be informing callers about any important information that might save them some time. If you're calling for a different reason, then you should definitely wait and talk to an agent and get things resolved, but if not, why waste our time? And yours?
Labels: wasteoftime
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
I just don't know
One of the things that drives me crazy is when someone doesn't know the answer to a question, and so just makes one up. When you're doing tech support, that's horrible. If the caller doesn't know the answer, you'd much rather hear them say "I don't know". Then you can try and help them find out, and you can be sure that you've got the right answer.
When a caller gives you an answer and they don't know, you don't find out when they're wrong until you've wasted some time. There are easy cases where this happens, and it's just frustrating:
Me: "What version of Windows are you using?"
Caller: "2000."
Me: "OK, please click on Start, move up to Settings, and click Network and Dial-up Connections."
Caller: "It doesn't say that under settings. It says Dialup Networking. Should I click that?"
At this point I know they actually have Windows Millenium Edition. Admittedly, it's stupid that the naming conventions worked out so that there's a Windows 2000 and Millenium Edition, but there is, and they're fairly different.
Then there are other cases where a caller says something, and we waste a fair bit of time figuring out the problem, only to discover that the reason that we didn't look at the cause was because of an answer that the caller gave earlier. Take the case of Lance*, who called and said he wasn't able to send out email. Receiving was working, but not sending.
The first thing we usually do with most email errors is doublecheck the account settings. On our way in, we saw that he had an email account with another company. I asked if he still used it, since if he didn't, we would remove it. "Yeah, I still use it sometimes." Are you connected to that internet provider right now? "No, I'm connected to you guys." The logs seemed to back that up, so we moved on.
We checked the account settings, and they were fine. We checked for software that might be interfering, but turning it off didn't seem to help. We tried to telnet into the outgoing mail server, and it failed. Hmm.
I asked him to try emailing himself from the other email account, and it worked fine. OK... so he's able to get through perfectly well on some other provider's email account but not ours. Are you sure you're connected to us right now? "Yeah." Alright, because it's behaving like the computer is connected to the other provider. "Nope, it isn't."
So we went back to the command prompt and I had him enter ipconfig. Sure enough, the domain was the other provider. "Oh... I don't know how that happened." Well, let's have you try connecting to us, then retry your email. "Oh, it worked. So... I should make sure I'm connected to you before I try to send your email?"
Yes. Yes you should.
The worst part is that it's such a simple issue, and we could have had it resolved in about three minutes, instead of 25. He didn't know who he was connected to, but since he answered surely, I didn't have a reason to doubt him until nothing else turned up a problem.
*Probably not his real name. I don't remember what his name was, but for some reason 'Lance' makes me laugh, and I don't remember laughing at his name, so it probably wasn't Lance.
When a caller gives you an answer and they don't know, you don't find out when they're wrong until you've wasted some time. There are easy cases where this happens, and it's just frustrating:
Me: "What version of Windows are you using?"
Caller: "2000."
Me: "OK, please click on Start, move up to Settings, and click Network and Dial-up Connections."
Caller: "It doesn't say that under settings. It says Dialup Networking. Should I click that?"
At this point I know they actually have Windows Millenium Edition. Admittedly, it's stupid that the naming conventions worked out so that there's a Windows 2000 and Millenium Edition, but there is, and they're fairly different.
Then there are other cases where a caller says something, and we waste a fair bit of time figuring out the problem, only to discover that the reason that we didn't look at the cause was because of an answer that the caller gave earlier. Take the case of Lance*, who called and said he wasn't able to send out email. Receiving was working, but not sending.
The first thing we usually do with most email errors is doublecheck the account settings. On our way in, we saw that he had an email account with another company. I asked if he still used it, since if he didn't, we would remove it. "Yeah, I still use it sometimes." Are you connected to that internet provider right now? "No, I'm connected to you guys." The logs seemed to back that up, so we moved on.
We checked the account settings, and they were fine. We checked for software that might be interfering, but turning it off didn't seem to help. We tried to telnet into the outgoing mail server, and it failed. Hmm.
I asked him to try emailing himself from the other email account, and it worked fine. OK... so he's able to get through perfectly well on some other provider's email account but not ours. Are you sure you're connected to us right now? "Yeah." Alright, because it's behaving like the computer is connected to the other provider. "Nope, it isn't."
So we went back to the command prompt and I had him enter ipconfig. Sure enough, the domain was the other provider. "Oh... I don't know how that happened." Well, let's have you try connecting to us, then retry your email. "Oh, it worked. So... I should make sure I'm connected to you before I try to send your email?"
Yes. Yes you should.
The worst part is that it's such a simple issue, and we could have had it resolved in about three minutes, instead of 25. He didn't know who he was connected to, but since he answered surely, I didn't have a reason to doubt him until nothing else turned up a problem.
*Probably not his real name. I don't remember what his name was, but for some reason 'Lance' makes me laugh, and I don't remember laughing at his name, so it probably wasn't Lance.
Labels: confidence, honesty, wasteoftime
