NCR – Digital Insight | 2020

Problem: Trainer satisfaction scores on e-learning surveys were sitting at around 40 avg tNPS, compared to virtual-led instructor training (90 tNPS avg). Goal was to increase trainer satisfaction score by at least 10 tNPS, on average.

Process Summary:

1. Empathized: Compiled/reviewed e-learning course survey comments from 12 most viewed courses (top 2 viewed courses per trainer). Comments came from both external clients and internal employees. 

2. Defined: Identified the problem statement: customers feel e-Learning courses are drone on almost robotically, and cannot match trainer voice to personality when they have not yet met the trainer for a virtually led class.

3. Ideated: Wide to narrow brainstorming by using a quadrant to map ideas as highest vs. lowest cost to implement, vs. most/least effort to develop. After developing a few ideas, we decided to test adding video introductions from the trainer on the opening slides of their courses (cost us nothing extra, and had the least amount of time to develop among all ideas).

4. Prototyped & Tested: We conducted an A/B test by having 1 trainer (me) script, record, and upload an introduction video the 2 most viewed courses I was responsible for, and published those courses under separate URLs. Over the next 2 weeks, I assigned 50% of my participants the old course, and 50% the new course. We then reviewed the trainer satisfaction scores against each other for each version of the course. 

5. Iterate: Responses showed a tremendous uptick in trainer satisfaction, increasing 100% - from 40 to 80 tNPS - on the courses with the video. No further iteration. 

Outcome: Because the test showed such positive results, training management operationalized the solution and had all trainers create an intro video that was added to all courses they were responsible for. After 3 months, all of our e-learning courses averaged a +78 tNPS, an 87.5% increase for trainer satisfaction.

NCR – Digital Insight | 2015

Problem: Customer Care management received complaints from clients, external partners, and internal teams about unmet critical incident SLAs.

Process Summary:

1. Empathized: Compiled/reviewed complaints from partners/clients and surveyed management team and staff (separately) for their perspective on pain points. Established team including customer care call center reps, SMEs and team leads, as well as reps from 3 most impacted cross-functional teams.

2. Defined: Defined 2 problem statements: 1 from the perspective of management and partners; 1 from the perspective of staff. The team hypothesized that solving the staff problem (lacking direction for critical cases) first would alleviate the management and partner problem (lacking communication from call center staff with critical cases).

3. Ideated: Wide to narrow brainstorming by using a quadrant to map ideas as fastest/slowest development time vs. most/least technological capabilities needed. Ideas ranged from creating new pathways in CRM system (high technological capabilities needed; slow development time) to compiling a list of every critical incident-related article in the Knowledge Base and providing it to staff (low technological capabilities; fast development time).

4. Prototyped & Tested: Started with a digital desk-drop of the compiled list of critical incident articles, as one of the specific employee pain points was not knowing where to go in the Knowledge Base to handle incidents as they arose. Provided list to all call center staff, and reviewed data after 2 weeks. Found that call center staff took 5 minutes longer on average to respond to critical incidents at SLA times, compared to previous weeks (avg. 25 minutes late to respond).

5. Iterate: Feedback from staff indicated the Knowledge Base articles were helpful, but hard to sort through, and that the individual articles did not provide the information needed to successfully move a critical incident forward, or follow up on it. Pivoted to a 2nd, A/B  experiment, where 50% of staff (those who had taken the most critical calls over the past month) were provided with a high-level outline of steps to take depending on the situation, chart of department contacts by major product, templates and examples for how to write notes, and an appendix including links to supporting articles and other documentation. The other 50% were presented with a flowchart and the same supporting materials.

Outcome: Feedback from the groups and 30% increase in responsiveness to critical incidents caused the operationalization of the Critical Incident Playbook. Additional feedback from staff, management, and other stakeholders was taken into consideration, and used to finalize the playbook. Within a few weeks of operationalization, 97% of critical SLAs were met on-time, and continued to be met within a high range (90+%) for the next year.