"dafydd" <dafydd.ieuans@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165492455.800531.239620@j72g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> So what have we learned from all this chit chat? Basically that every
> company has its better parts, and has areas in the country where they
> are very strong. From a personal standpoint, as a customer service
> representative, I find the thing that needs to be worked on the hardest
> by Sprint to be the amount of notes that are left in accounts. You
> have no idea, until you are the rep dealing with a customer, how
> frustrating it is to have absolutely NO idea what the rep before you
> did, because the note reads something like this.. "cust called in
> about their account" nothing about what on the account they called in
> about, what they did inregards to information to the customer, etc...\

I work on billing and CRM software development, and can empathize with what
you go through.

It's a tough decision, when dealing with such a myriad of issues. On one
hand, it's nice to provide structured fields that a CSR must fill in. Take
that a step further and they merely choose from pick-lists. And then as soon
as you lock it down that much there is undoubtedly a significant percentage
of calls that don't fit the structure.

So sometimes--and I am not fond of this--you are back with simple,
unstructured, notes entry. This requires strong policy-and-procedure on the
work-flow side to ensure it's being used adequately. Making it simply a
required entry, without effective policy to go along with it (including
monitoring) results in what you see: a lot of worthless comments in notes.
What a waste of valuable information that could have--should have--been
captured properly during the calls.

All that said, I go *out of my way* to instruct Sprint CSRs (well, any
company's CSRs) to note my account. I usually ask that it's been properly
annotated at least twice. Even with this, 75% of the time (when I need to
call back) I find the call was not properly noted. That is just plain
unacceptable, IMO.


--
Mike