Question: We are considering the use of "instant messaging" in our call center between team leaders and their CSR's as well as call center managers and their team leaders. Does anyone have experience or recommendations for designing or implementing this type application? We have not selected a vendor. We are in the proof of concept stage at this point.

RESPONSE #1

We utilize MSN Instant Messenger (IM) that is accessible to employees only. Although there is sometimes misuse (representatives chatting with each other) it has proven to be highly effective. Here are just some of the real advantages it has to offer:

• Managers/Supervisors can converse with each other candidly with their thoughts during conference calls.

• I open a "team IM" each morning, adding only the members of my team to one group IM. This IM stays open throughout the day for the reps to reach me with questions during calls or assist each other.

• It is a quick, efficient way to ask "are you there," instead of walking to someone's office or calling them (especially if they are on a call.)

We rely on IM very heavily and have found it to save great amounts of time. The slight downside certainly outweighs any possible misuse. Thanks! -- Vicki Wolf, XO Communications

RESPONSE #2

I manage a forty-seat veterinary healthcare call center, where we process orders and answer some basic product questions. It can be a challenge to arm every agent with an appropriate level of product knowledge, especially during occasional quick growth periods. Unfortunately, a searchable knowledgebase is not an immediate option.

For that reason, Instant Messaging has been a godsend. Agents can get virtually real-time answers almost as fast as each party can type, allowing a single knowledge-holder to answer multiple agents at the same time.

We also operate an ongoing live chat room; similar questions are answered there. Since any spontaneous questions are in a public view, there's a regular ongoing knowledge transfer across the entire shift.

Instant Messaging's drawbacks are drawn from its benefits. Because of the ease in which answers are obtained in Instant Message, Team Leads can be slow to suggest the inclusion of given material into initial training. They may just not realize there is a problem. Disciplined QA monitoring helps mitigate that, however. Also, because Instant Message doesn't go through a review team that can evaluate an answer's appropriateness, there's the chance misinformation could be propogated.

I'd recommend Instant Message in any situation where you have to provide fast, near-unpredictable product knowledge. It's better, obviously, to frontload that training, but that's not always realistic.

As an underlying benefit, I've seen a real morale benefit to allowing agents to chat and support one another. It helps cut floor chatter. But, I think that may be different depending on your center's culture. --Michael Gray, VetCentric

RESPONSE #3

There is a way to address all of the shortcomings that the previous two answers mentioned. I work for a company called IMLogic. We utilize all of the messengers you currently use or want to use. The difference is that we make it managed, secure and controlled.

In a nutshell, the same hygiene you require for email is what we provide for Instant Messaging.

RESPONSE #4

I would love to take this idea to my GM and VP. We are always changing something and getting word out to the reps on the floor is a very time-consuming situation. We do have an intranet but it is not used as it should be. I see some wonderful opportunities to use instant messaging with Supervisor queue agents and CSRs. CSR and Supervisors could communicate throughout the day instead of a shotgun approach. You blast the CSR with information and walk away because you need to get to all 50 on your team. Thanks for the info. -- David Hood, ACS Inc.

RESPONSE #5

There can be some security concerns with the freely available IM systems. For example, viruses within attachments are more likely to breach defenses than those within email attachments. There are some enterprise systems that, at a price, offer better security. I have used Sonork in the past when we decided to stop using Yahoo because of client security concerns. -- Nick Abbott, Tacamor

RESPONSE #6

We also use MSN Instant Messenger (IM) throughout our company (not just in the call center) to facilitate and streamline communication between groups. To handle the abuse issue, we have deployed a third party software package (sorry - don't know what the name is) that logs the activity and provides us reports that we can drill down on to monitor any misuse. We also use the I3 phone system. With the .NET version you can tie the phone status to the IM status - therefore if you are on the phone, it can automatically set you to unavailable so that people do not expect an immediate answer (it will still, however, deliver the message if the other user chooses to send.) With our call center split between two areas separated with a hallway, this has proven to be a valuable asset to faciliting communication.

RESPONSE #7

We have implemented IM in our center and since retracted it.

While it is a benefit in that a lead can handle multiple CSR concerns virtually simultaneously, we noticed a few major drawbacks. Using an open IM tool (MSN) resulted in huge drains in productivity due to abuse with both internal CSRs and contacts they have outside of the site. Our center is predominantly email-based and the use of this tool directly took away from their productive time. Another consideration was that our leads became "answer machines" -- the tendency was for them to sit at their desk all day and give the answer versus actually showing the CSR where to find the answer (give a man a fish he eats for a day; teach him to fish he eats for a lifetime).

We have, however, maintained the IM tool at a leadership level and have found it useful with little abuse. IM would be useful if it was better controlled, restricting who the chat could be with (i.e.: CSRs could only have their lead and supervisor as contacts). This software does exist but has a cost attached versus the free-ware like MSN. -- Tyler Campbell

RESPONSE #8

Instant messaging can be a great asset with instant communication without interruption between supervisors and agents, but it can also be something agents can misuse, too. There are some ways to combat misuse of instant messaging:

• use a program to monitor agent desktop activity

• develop and implement a strong policy and corrective action plan for misuse

• disable agent-to-agent instant messaging to prevent misuse

-- Angie K.