Implementing Feedback Loops To Set Expectations On Support Response Times

Defining Acceptable Response Times

When customers reach out for support, having clear expectations set on response times is key to providing a good customer experience. To define appropriate response time targets, companies should start by analyzing current support traffic – what are the most common issues customers face? How complex are they to troubleshoot and resolve? This analysis will shed light on feasible response timeframes.

Easy-to-solve issues like password resets may only require a response within 1 business day, while more complex inquiries like account access problems could take up to 3 business days to thoroughly investigate and address. Companies should define multiple response time tiers based on request urgency and complexity.

Additionally, factors like customer type (free vs paid accounts), use case (commercial vs personal), and channel (self-serve help portal, email, chat etc) may impact feasible response times. Free users likely tolerate longer waits than paid accounts. Commercial clients expect higher urgency than individual consumers. And chat conversations necessitate much quicker responses than email.

Once appropriate response time targets are defined, they must be clearly communicated to manage expectations. Publishing these targets prominently across self-serve portals, within auto-reply confirmations, and in customer profiles sets the stage for aligned standards between users and support teams.

Implementing Automated Updates on Ticket Status

Simply defining and communicating response time expectations is not enough – companies must close the loop with customers by providing status updates within those timeframes. Automated ticket updates are an excellent way to do this efficiently at scale.

Upon receiving an inbound inquiry, customers could instantly receive an auto-confirmation email detailing the support team’s response time commitment. Next, automated reminders can be triggered to update on pending requests – for example, sending an email after 2 days without resolution for tickets requiring a 3 day response.

Emails provide passive communication but some issues warrant active outreach. For high severity cases like complete service outages, automated phone or SMS messages may be appropriate. The channel and frequency for status updates should align to the inquiry’s urgency.

Finally, when tickets are ultimately resolved, customers should receive not only the resolution details but also timing metrics like time-to-first response and time-to-resolution. This improves transparency and highlights how service level commitments were met.

Providing Expected Resolution Times Upfront

While first response timeframes allow companies to acknowledge receipt of issues, customers also care deeply about overall resolution timeliness. Providing clarity upfront on expected full resolution times sharpens the picture on what customers can anticipate.

Similar to response times, feasible resolution time metrics depend heavily on the type of issue raised. For example, resetting passwords can be resolved instantly but hardware replacements may take over 2 weeks due to shipping.

Resolution time guidance has additional complexity in that the times are often ranges rather than absolute targets. Factors like troubleshooting dead-ends, escalation needs, and parts/resource availability all contribute to unpredictability.

Given this environment of uncertainty, companies should define resolution time ranges grounded in historical trouble ticket data then clearly communicate these. Setting the correct customer expectations upfront acts as a cushion should unforeseen complications arise.

Additionally, if early troubleshooting reveals a ticket to be more complex than initially thought, companies should proactively reach out with revised resolution range estimates. This demonstrates awareness while preventing customers from being blindsided if final resolution ends up taking materially longer.

Managing User Expectations with Chatbots

Chatbots present a unique opportunity to embed user expectation management right at the outset of support inquiries. Their interactive nature allows prompting users for key details to diagnose issues and set accurate timelines.

Upon intake, chatbots can classify tickets by factors like category, severity level, account type. They can then serve up pre-defined response and resolution times for that specific use case. This tailored guidance vs blanket averages leads to improved accuracy.

Chatbots can also manage expectations after the ticket is logged. As users follow-up for status updates, chatbots can provide process transparency by listing completed troubleshooting steps and next actions planned by human agents. Giving users visibility into backstage workflows preserves trust and patience.

Additionally, as human agents progress on investigating issues, they can feed interim findings to chatbots to relay to users. This prevents customers from feeling cut-off until the full resolution arrives at ticket closure.

Creating Feedback Loops to Monitor Performance

The backbone enabling companies to set and meet support timing expectations is continually monitoring actual performance through feedback loops. Rather than defines targets simply through guesswork, analytics should guide response and resolution targets.

Specifically, historical inbound support ticket data tied to timing metrics offers objective ground truth on realistic windows. Factors like issue category, account type, channel etc can be sliced to define performance at segment level rather than blanket averages.

Ongoing voice of the customer surveys can supplement the quantitative data with qualitative input directly from users. Capturing customer verbatim commentary on their perceived timeliness and expectations provides further context.

Feeding this data into machine learning models allows generating of predictive response and resolution times for future issues. The algorithms grow smarter over time based on new ticket data.

This analytics architecture creates a virtuous cycle for continuously improving timing targets. And ultimately customers receive increasing alignment between promised and actual support experiences.

Using Analytics to Continuously Improve

While feedback loops help optimize support timing KPIs, companies can leverage analytics for several adjacent improvements as well.

Reviewing timing performance trends by category reveals which issue types drag down averages. For persistently lagging domains, allocated support resources or expertise may need bolstering.

Resolution time outliers — tickets taking materially longer vs peers — need deeper investigation. Understanding the root cause of delays for these use cases leads to process fixes to prevent recurrence.

Analysis by channel provides insight on which modes users prefer for urgent needs vs everyday issues. As chat and self-help adoption expands, inquiry volume shifts away from traditional email and phone.

Proactive monitoring through analytics enables support orgs to stay ahead of areas requiring attention vs reacting after customers have already raised complaints. And allocating resources optimized to user needs and preferences improves efficiency.