call work flow
-
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@scottalanmiller said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
So you'd rather just hang up with everyone ASAP - that's it, sorry we have no one immediately available, so give me info and get off my phone.
Yes. Last thing I want to do is be put on hold, especially if there is something wrong. I want to be free to deal with it. And, of course, get called back as quickly as the doctor can be found and pull up my file. Definitely don't want to be on hold, what benefit is there to that?
Because being on hold is an active link to the doctor's office - otherwise you're just sitting around with your thumb up you rectum waiting on a call - I think most would rather wait on hold.
No it's an active link to a person in a remote office. It is not the doctor, the doctor could be banging his staffer and opt to not take any calls that day.
Sitting on hold doesn't fix the issue.
This is what they are already doing "sitting around with your thumb up you rectum waiting on a call"
And neither does waiting for a return call. if you're on hold, the presumption is that someone is advocating for you in an effort to find a doctor/staffer RFN.
Any more so than they would be if a message was left? Either way the customer needs to talk to someone, so either addressing the issue by finding someone to take the call now, or waiting for the call back with the "1+ hour" call back window.
They are still speaking to someone.
The issue as I see it is, you (as in the business) doesn't want to hear customers complain about long call back times, so support the "run around approach" rather than having a better solution to get staffers, RNs, Doctors to call back in a timely manner.
Maybe all of these people are swamped with work and literally can't call back.
So instead you'll have an operator interrupt their busy day to take a non-life threatening call?
Well now you're talking the individual. If the individual wanted to leave a message instead of waiting for us to find someone for them to talk to - fine, they definitely have that choice. it's just not our default choice. Our default is to provide active connections, not take a message dump call back situation - not saying one is better than the other.. that's just personal choice.
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@scottalanmiller said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
So you'd rather just hang up with everyone ASAP - that's it, sorry we have no one immediately available, so give me info and get off my phone.
Yes. Last thing I want to do is be put on hold, especially if there is something wrong. I want to be free to deal with it. And, of course, get called back as quickly as the doctor can be found and pull up my file. Definitely don't want to be on hold, what benefit is there to that?
Because being on hold is an active link to the doctor's office - otherwise you're just sitting around with your thumb up you rectum waiting on a call - I think most would rather wait on hold.
No it's an active link to a person in a remote office. It is not the doctor, the doctor could be banging his staffer and opt to not take any calls that day.
Sitting on hold doesn't fix the issue.
This is what they are already doing "sitting around with your thumb up you rectum waiting on a call"
And neither does waiting for a return call. if you're on hold, the presumption is that someone is advocating for you in an effort to find a doctor/staffer RFN.
Any more so than they would be if a message was left? Either way the customer needs to talk to someone, so either addressing the issue by finding someone to take the call now, or waiting for the call back with the "1+ hour" call back window.
They are still speaking to someone.
The issue as I see it is, you (as in the business) doesn't want to hear customers complain about long call back times, so support the "run around approach" rather than having a better solution to get staffers, RNs, Doctors to call back in a timely manner.
Maybe all of these people are swamped with work and literally can't call back.
So instead you'll have an operator interrupt their busy day to take a non-life threatening call?
Well now you're talking the individual. If the individual wanted to leave a message instead of waiting for us to find someone for them to talk to - fine, they definitely have that choice. it's just not our default choice. Our default is to provide active connections, not take a message dump call back situation - not saying one is better than the other.. that's just personal choice.
That's not bad at all... unless you ever let non-emergency people being on hold get precedence over the people who asked for a call back. If so... you've just identified the entire problem - customer disrespect. It's the "fast food drive through" problem where customers at the drive through or on the phone get priority over customers that were ahead of them in line. It's disrespecting the people in line, telling them that callers or drivers are more important customers than they are.
This is the only thing that I can figure out that might be happening to make the rest of this make sense. Your hold logic doesn't make sense unless there is another problem like this one. Your hold times, call back times... they don't add up.
-
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
Saying its a personal choice as in the business wanting to always connect the customer with a person (besides the operator) is fine.
But it can't also moan about the piss poor call back times. Hire more employees, or change the approach.
Who ever said anything about the call back times? No one! The primary complaint is playing phone tag. Only solution, hire more staff.
And no, the solution is to get a proper call-back system in place. So people who called first get a return call first. Staff would help (in that they could make more simultaneous calls) but that isn't the issue.
-
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
Saying its a personal choice as in the business wanting to always connect the customer with a person (besides the operator) is fine.
But it can't also moan about the piss poor call back times. Hire more employees, or change the approach.
Who ever said anything about the call back times? No one! The primary complaint is playing phone tag. Only solution, hire more staff.
If call back times are as short as the hold times, then your comments about people sitting around waiting for call backs during breaks would not be an issue. Either your call back times are appropriately short and your statement about breaks isn't correct, or they are too long and the hold times are too long too and cause the breaks problem. RIght? What other choice is there?
-
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
Saying its a personal choice as in the business wanting to always connect the customer with a person (besides the operator) is fine.
But it can't also moan about the piss poor call back times. Hire more employees, or change the approach.
Who ever said anything about the call back times? No one! The primary complaint is playing phone tag. Only solution, hire more staff.
True, phone tag is a legit issue. But this seems crazy unless something else is wrong. Let's answer these two things...
- What is the average time between VM and call back?
- What is the average time on hold?
-
I'm done!
-
This wasn't where ANY of this conversation that started on the last thread even needed to go.
-
I already know the flow is horrible
I've been telling them for a decade to dump to VM, but they refuse.
So I stopped caring about that.
-
A mitel call-park, while allowing the operator to hang up, and allow a staffer to ignore a call doesn't really address the issue either.
Because they'd never be able to get any other work completed. (and as @scottalanmiller keeps saying) who wants to sit on hold. Call park or not, the consumer doesn't know the difference, it's hold.
A proper call back system needs to be implemented, where metrics for call back times being lower, would be a solution. But is there such a system for mitel?
-
So fix my f***ing transfer problem and the pull a call from another phone and don't worry about fixing the damned underlying problem.
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. They don't want it fixed.
so I'm working in the guidelines I have been given.
-
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
So fix my f**ing transfer problem and the pull a call from another phone and don't worry about fixing the damned underlying problem.
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. They don't want it fixed.
so I'm working in the guidelines I have been given.
If the business doesn't want the issue fixed, what where you tasked with trying to do?
-
Ok..... .so I have read so many thing that have nothing to do with @Dashrender's problem that I have no idea what the problem is anymore.
@Dashrender can you please remind me of what you are looking to solve.....
-
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
This wasn't where ANY of this conversation that started on the last thread even needed to go.
I thought that this thread was to ask how the flow could be improved?
-
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
So fix my f**ing transfer problem and the pull a call from another phone and don't worry about fixing the damned underlying problem.
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. They don't want it fixed.
so I'm working in the guidelines I have been given.
If the business doesn't want the issue fixed, what where you tasked with trying to do?
This entire thread was/is just a waste of time, @Dashrender has said that the business isn't interested in fixing the system, so he's stuck propping up the current system.
-
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
So fix my fucking transfer problem and the pull a call from another phone and don't worry about fixing the damned underlying problem.
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. They don't want it fixed.
so I'm working in the guidelines I have been given.
But here is the OP that you stated: "...here's a new thread to discuss how horrible or not my current call flow setup works."
That's exactly what we've been doing. What did we get wrong?
-
@travisdh1 said in call work flow:
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
So fix my f**ing transfer problem and the pull a call from another phone and don't worry about fixing the damned underlying problem.
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. They don't want it fixed.
so I'm working in the guidelines I have been given.
If the business doesn't want the issue fixed, what where you tasked with trying to do?
This entire thread was/is just a waste of time, @Dashrender has said that the business isn't interested in fixing the system, so he's stuck propping up the current system.
But he made this thread to discuss what was wrong with the flow.
-
@scottalanmiller said in call work flow:
@travisdh1 said in call work flow:
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
So fix my f**ing transfer problem and the pull a call from another phone and don't worry about fixing the damned underlying problem.
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. They don't want it fixed.
so I'm working in the guidelines I have been given.
If the business doesn't want the issue fixed, what where you tasked with trying to do?
This entire thread was/is just a waste of time, @Dashrender has said that the business isn't interested in fixing the system, so he's stuck propping up the current system.
But he made this thread to discuss what was wrong with the flow.
Ah, I was thinking it was split off of the other thread, doh.
-
@scottalanmiller said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
This wasn't where ANY of this conversation that started on the last thread even needed to go.
I thought that this thread was to ask how the flow could be improved?
while I did leave off the improved in relation to the problem with parking, etc.. that was the point. The reality is....
I already know - have known, have been telling them for years to dump calls to VM, get rid of operators/secretaries, because you don't really need them. Well they do. When another doc's office calls, they expect to be able to reach someone and cut the line for service, this is a weird standard I've run into. but It's really not that weird, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours situation.
But the whole point of the additional conversation was parking lots and using them inside my existing workflow, without changing my workflow.
-
@travisdh1 said in call work flow:
@scottalanmiller said in call work flow:
@travisdh1 said in call work flow:
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
So fix my f**ing transfer problem and the pull a call from another phone and don't worry about fixing the damned underlying problem.
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. They don't want it fixed.
so I'm working in the guidelines I have been given.
If the business doesn't want the issue fixed, what where you tasked with trying to do?
This entire thread was/is just a waste of time, @Dashrender has said that the business isn't interested in fixing the system, so he's stuck propping up the current system.
But he made this thread to discuss what was wrong with the flow.
Ah, I was thinking it was split off of the other thread, doh.
it was - the OP title/ask is wrong - my bad - Scott is correct - he has provided exactly what was asked for.
Some one please lock this thread/.
-
@travisdh1 said in call work flow:
@scottalanmiller said in call work flow:
@travisdh1 said in call work flow:
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
So fix my f**ing transfer problem and the pull a call from another phone and don't worry about fixing the damned underlying problem.
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. They don't want it fixed.
so I'm working in the guidelines I have been given.
If the business doesn't want the issue fixed, what where you tasked with trying to do?
This entire thread was/is just a waste of time, @Dashrender has said that the business isn't interested in fixing the system, so he's stuck propping up the current system.
But he made this thread to discuss what was wrong with the flow.
Ah, I was thinking it was split off of the other thread, doh.
Maybe he meant it to be but didn't really make it clear enough so we got confused.
-
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@scottalanmiller said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
This wasn't where ANY of this conversation that started on the last thread even needed to go.
I thought that this thread was to ask how the flow could be improved?
while I did leave off the improved in relation to the problem with parking, etc.. that was the point. The reality is....
I already know - have known, have been telling them for years to dump calls to VM, get rid of operators/secretaries, because you don't really need them. Well they do. When another doc's office calls, they expect to be able to reach someone and cut the line for service, this is a weird standard I've run into. but It's really not that weird, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours situation.
But the whole point of the additional conversation was parking lots and using them inside my existing workflow, without changing my workflow.
Oh, that was lacking from the OP here
