halesowenmum
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2010
- Messages
- 383
- Office Version
- 365
- Platform
- Windows
Hi all
The data I need help with is to analyse the data around a trial of a new way of running customer services where two initiatives were trialled where customers were given a telephone call proactively by our company to see if they had any issues that needed resolving with the aim of resolving them over the phone if possible (all the customers called or not called successfully = 106, contacted successfully by telephone only (89) OR contacted successfully by telephone and also given a free home service call (17) - and there were 23 who the customer service officers were unable to get in contact with when they called:
<tbody>
</tbody>
106 is the 89 and the 17 added together which delivers the 106 total - the number for those who were called but no one was in is essentially for information only (I think) - although they kind of act as a small control group ie they didn't have a contact so it would show how likely they were to need to call back if no one proactively phones them. The 106 is therefore the number of customers who were successfully contacted 89 of which had just a phone call and 17 had a phone call and a home service call.
All these refer to totalled cells elsewhere where I've counted up the different types of contact as a % of the 106. All these refer to totalled cells elsewhere where I've counted up the different types of contact as a % of the 17, 89 or 23.
The questions I want to answer (and where my mind is going a bit blank
!) is around how to identify which method of contact was the most and least successful to meet this aim: for all customers contacted proactively by us to be able to compare whether not being contacted at all (Not successfully contacted(?)) or contacted by telephone only (Contacted by telephone only) or had a call and a home visit (Had home visit) which was the most and least successful method in preventing the customer from having to call back any more (Customers who did not have to call us back after our call).
As above but for those who had to call us back once and those who had to call us back two or more times what were the results based on the three different contact methods - did customers call back less, the same or more under the different contact methods.
The company wants to figure out if asking staff to follow this methodology had a significant enough effect on preventing customers having to call back that it's wise to continue it as an ongoing operational model, or if the effect wasn't much different to customers who weren't contacted at all - does it reduce customers having to call back or is it not much better than just letting them call themselves if they need to? Was the most important thing to give them a home service call (was just a phone call ineffective?).
Crikey I hope that's clear (and not as mud!) and any help really appreciated.
The data I need help with is to analyse the data around a trial of a new way of running customer services where two initiatives were trialled where customers were given a telephone call proactively by our company to see if they had any issues that needed resolving with the aim of resolving them over the phone if possible (all the customers called or not called successfully = 106, contacted successfully by telephone only (89) OR contacted successfully by telephone and also given a free home service call (17) - and there were 23 who the customer service officers were unable to get in contact with when they called:
| AI | AO | AP | AQ | AR | |
| 114 | Had a home service call | Had a proactive cust. service call only | Were uncontactable | ||
| 115 | No. | 17 | 89 | 23 | 106* |
| 116 | % | 16% =AO115/AR115 | 84% =AP115/AR115 | 22% =AQ115/AR115 | 100% |
| 117 | Call breakdown as % of the 105 total | ||||
| 119 | Customers who did not have to call us back after the call | 13% =AO112/AR115 | 70% =Z112/AR115 | 12% =AF112/AR115 | |
| 120 | Customers who had to call back one time | 6% =AJ112/AR115 | 23% =AA112/AR115 | 7% =AF112/AR115 | |
| 121 | Customers who had to call back two or more times | 1% =AO115/AR115 | 4% =AO115/AR115 | 2% =AO115/AR115 | |
| 122 | Readmission breakdown by individual contact type (17, 89, 23) | ||||
| 124 | Customers who did not have to call us back after our call | 82% =AI112/AO115 | 55% =AE112/AP115 | 57% =AF112/AQ115 | |
| 125 | Customers who had to call back one time | 35% =AJ112/AO115 | 27% =AA112/AP115 | 30% =AG112/AQ115 | |
| 126 | Customers who had to call back two or more times | 6% =AK112/AO115 | 4% =AB112/AP115 | 9% =AH112/AQ115 | |
<tbody>
</tbody>
106 is the 89 and the 17 added together which delivers the 106 total - the number for those who were called but no one was in is essentially for information only (I think) - although they kind of act as a small control group ie they didn't have a contact so it would show how likely they were to need to call back if no one proactively phones them. The 106 is therefore the number of customers who were successfully contacted 89 of which had just a phone call and 17 had a phone call and a home service call.
All these refer to totalled cells elsewhere where I've counted up the different types of contact as a % of the 106. All these refer to totalled cells elsewhere where I've counted up the different types of contact as a % of the 17, 89 or 23.
The questions I want to answer (and where my mind is going a bit blank
!) is around how to identify which method of contact was the most and least successful to meet this aim: for all customers contacted proactively by us to be able to compare whether not being contacted at all (Not successfully contacted(?)) or contacted by telephone only (Contacted by telephone only) or had a call and a home visit (Had home visit) which was the most and least successful method in preventing the customer from having to call back any more (Customers who did not have to call us back after our call).As above but for those who had to call us back once and those who had to call us back two or more times what were the results based on the three different contact methods - did customers call back less, the same or more under the different contact methods.
The company wants to figure out if asking staff to follow this methodology had a significant enough effect on preventing customers having to call back that it's wise to continue it as an ongoing operational model, or if the effect wasn't much different to customers who weren't contacted at all - does it reduce customers having to call back or is it not much better than just letting them call themselves if they need to? Was the most important thing to give them a home service call (was just a phone call ineffective?).
Crikey I hope that's clear (and not as mud!) and any help really appreciated.
