Microsoft Dynamics 365 for Customer Service

Serious Customer Service Capabilities

In our more than 10 years of customer service research, publishing, and consulting, we’d never before published a report about a Microsoft offering. It’s not because Microsoft hasn’t had a customer service offering or that the company hasn’t had success in business applications. Since 2003, its CRM suite has always included a customer service app. And, its Dynamics CRM brand has built a customer base of tens of thousands of accounts and millions of users. But, Dynamics CRM had always been more about its sales app and that app’s integration with Office and Outlook. Customer service capabilities have been a bit limited. No longer.

Beginning in November 2015, the improvements in two new releases—CRM 2016 and CRM 2016 Update 1—and, in November 2016, the introduction of the new Dynamics 365 brand have strengthened, even transformed, Microsoft’s customer service app and have made Microsoft a player to consider in the high end of the customer service space.

Our Product Evaluation Report on Microsoft Dynamics 365 for Customer Service, published December 1, 2016, will help that consideration. These are the new and/or significantly improved customer service components:

  • Knowledge management
  • Search
  • Customer service UI
  • Web self-service and communities
  • Social customer service

Let’s take a closer but brief look at each of them.

Knowledge Management

Knowledge Management is the name of a new customer service component. Introduced with CRM 2016, it’s a comprehensive knowledge management system with a rich and flexible knowledge model, a large set of useful knowledge management services, and an easy to learn and easy to use toolset. The best features of Knowledge Management are:

  • Visual tools of Interactive Service Hub, the customer service UI
  • Knowledge lifecycle and business processes that implement and support the lifecycle
  • Language support and translation
  • Version control
  • Roles for knowledge authors, owners, and managers

For example, Knowledge Management comes with a predefined but configurable knowledge lifecycle with Author, Review, Publish, and Expire phases. The screen shot in Figure 1 shows the steps in the Author phase.

ish-knowledge-author-stage-stepsFigure 1. This screen shot shows the steps in the Author phase of the knowledge management process.

Note that Knowledge Management is based on technology from Parature, a Reston, VA-based supplier with a customer service offering of the same name that Microsoft acquired in 2014. Beginning with the introduction of Dynamics 365, Microsoft no longer offers the Parature customer service product.

Search

Search is not a strength of Dynamics 365. Search sources are limited. Search query syntax is simple. There are few search analyses and few facilities for search results management. However, with the Dynamics 365 rebranding Microsoft has made improvements. Categorized Search, the new name of the search facility in Dynamics 365, retrieves database records with fields that begin with the words in search queries and lets administrators and seekers facet (Categorize) search results. The new Relevance Search adds relevance and stemming analyses. Microsoft still has work to do, but faceting, stemming, and relevance are a start to address limitations.

Customer Service UI – Interactive Service Hub

Interactive Service Hub (ISH) provides several useful and very attractive capabilities in Dynamics 365. It’s the UI for Knowledge Management, one of two UIs for case management, and a facility for creating and presenting dashboards. For the case management and knowledge management UIs, ISH provides visual tools that are easy to learn and easy to use. The tools let agents perform every case management task and let authors and editors perform every knowledge management function. For example, Figure 2 shows a screen shot of ISH’s presentation of an existing Case—the Name of the Case at the top left, the Case information to display “SUMMARY | DETAILS | CASE RELATIONSHIPS | SLA” under the Name, the phases of the deployment’s case management process “IDENTIFY QUALIFY RESEARCH RESOLVE” within a ribbon near the top of the screen, and the (SUMMARY) Case information in the center.

ish-existing-caseFigure 2. This screen shot shows the Interactive Service Hub display of an existing Case.

In addition to tools for building dashboards, ISH also packages useful predefined dashboards, two for case management and two for knowledge management. The four help customer service managers and agents and knowledge management authors and editors manage their work. Figure 3 shows an example of the My Knowledge Dashboard. It presents information useful to authors and editors very visually and interactively.

my-knowledge-dashboardFigure 3. This screen shot shows an example of the My Knowledge Dashboard.

Web Self-service and Communities

We were quite surprised to learn that, prior to the May 2016 introduction of CRM 2016 Update 1, Dynamics 365 for Customer Service and all of its predecessor products did not include facilities for building and deploying web self-service or communities sites. This limitation was addressed in Update 1 with the then named CRM Portal service, renamed the Portal service in Dynamics 365. Portal service is a template-based toolkit for developing (web development skills are required) and deploying browser-based web self-service and communities/forums sites. It’s based on technology from Adxstudio, which Microsoft acquired in September 2015 and it packages templates for a Customer Service Portal and a Community Portal. Note that Dynamics 365 for Customer Service licenses include one million page views per month for runtime usage of sites built on the Portal service (licenses may be extended with additional page views per month).

Social Customer Service

Microsoft Social Engagement is a separately packaged and separately priced social customer service offering that Microsoft introduced early in 2015. Social Engagement provides facilities that listen for social posts across a wide range of social sources (Instagram, Tumblr, WordPress, and YouTube as well as Facebook and Twitter), that analyze the content and sentiment of those posts, and that interact with social posters. In addition, Social Engagement integrates with Dynamics 365 for Customer Service. Through this integration, the automated or manual analysis of social posts can result in creating and managing customer service Cases. It’s a strong social customer service offering. What’s new is Microsoft bundles Social Engagement with Dynamics 365 for Customer Service. That’s a very big value add.

All This and More

We’ve discussed the most significant new and improved capabilities of Dynamics 365 for Customer Service. Knowledge Management, Interactive Service Hub, improved Search, the Portal service, and bundled Social Engagement certainly strengthen the offering. Although not quite as significant, Microsoft added and improved many other capabilities, too. For example, there are language support improvements, improvements to integration with external apps, new Customer Survey and “Voice of the Customer” feedback capabilities, and the use of Azure ML (Machine Learning) to suggest Knowledge Management Articles as Case resolutions automatically based on Case attribute values. Bottom line, Microsoft Dynamics 365 for Customer Service deserves serious consideration as the key customer service app for large businesses and public sector organizations, especially those that are already Microsoft shops.

Evaluating Customer Service Products

Framework-based, In-depth Product Evaluation Reports

We recently published our Product Evaluation Report on Desk.com, Salesforce’s customer service offering for small and mid-sized businesses. “Desk” is a very attractive offering with broad and deep capabilities. It earns good grades on our Customer Service Report Card, including Exceeds Requirements grades in Knowledge Management, Customer Service Integration, and Company Viability.

We’re confident that this report provides input and guidance to analysts in their efforts to evaluate, compare, and select those customer service products, and we know that it provides product assessment and product planning input for its product managers. Technology analysts and product managers are the primary audiences for our reports. We research and write to help exactly these roles. Like all of our Product Evaluation Reports about customer service products that include multiple apps—case management, knowledge management, web self-service, communities, and social customer service—it’s a big report, more than 60 pages.

Big is good. It’s their depth and detail that makes them so. Our research for them always includes studying a product’s licensed admin, user, and, when accessible, developer documentation, the manuals or online help files that come with a product. We read the patents or patent applications that are a product’s technology foundation. Whenever offered, we deploy and use the products. (We took the free 30-day trial of Desk.) We’ll watch suppliers’ demonstrations, but we rely on the actual product and its underlying technologies.

On the other hand, we’ve recently been hearing from some, especially product marketers when they’re charged to review report drafts (We never publish without the supplier’s review.), that the reports are too big. Okay. Point taken. Perhaps, tt is time to update our Product Evaluation Framework, the report outline, to produce shorter, more actionable reports, reports with no less depth and detail but reports with less descriptive content and more salient analytic content. It’s also time to tighten up our content.

Product Evaluation Reports Have Two Main Parts

Our Product Evaluation Reports have had two main parts: Customer Service Best Fit and Customer Service Technologies. Customer Service Best fit “presents information and analysis that classifies and describes customer service software products…speed(ing) evaluation and selection by presenting easy to evaluate characteristics that can quickly qualify an offering.” Customer Service Technologies examine the implementations of a product’s customer service applications and their foundation technologies as well as its integration and reporting and analysis capabilities. Here’s the reports’ depth and detail (and most of the content). Going forward, we’ll continue with this organization.

Streamlining Customer Service Best Fit

We will revamp and streamline Customer Best Fit, improving naming and emphasizing checklists. The section will now have this organization:

  • Applications, Channels, Devices, Languages
  • Packaging and Licensing
  • Supplier and Product
  • Best Prospects and Sample Customers
  • Competitors

Applications, Channels, Devices, Languages are lists of key product characteristics, characteristics that quickly qualify a product for deeper consideration. More specifically, applications are the sets of customer service capabilities “in the box” with the product—case management, knowledge management, and social customer service, for example. Channels are assisted-service, self-service, and social. We list apps within supported channels to show how what’s in the box may be deployed. Devices are the browsers and mobile devices the product supports for internal users and for end customers. Languages are two lists: one for the languages in which the product deploys and supports for its administration and internal users and one for the languages it supports for end customers.

Packaging and Licensing presents how the supplier offers the product, the fees that it charges for the offerings, and the consulting services available and/or necessary to help licensees deploy the offerings.

 Supplier and Product present high level assessments of the supplier’s and the product’s viability. For the supplier, we present history, ownership, staffing, financial performance, and customer growth. For the product, we present history, current development approach, release cycle, and future plans.

Best Prospects and Sample Customers are lists of the target markets for the product—the industries, business sizes, and geographies wherein the product best fits. This section also contains the current customer base for the product, a list of typical/sample customers within those target markets and, if possible, presents screen shots of their deployments.

 Competition lists the product’s closest competitors, its best alternatives. We’ll also include a bit of analysis explaining what make them the best alternatives and where the subject product has differentiators.

Tightening-up Customer Service Technologies

Customer Service Technologies is our key value-add and most significant differentiator of our Product Evaluation Reports. It’s why you should read our reports, but, as we mentioned, it’s also the main reason why they’re big.

We’ve spent years developing and refining the criteria of our Evaluation Framework. They criteria are the results of continuing work with customer service products and technologies and our complementary work the people who are product’s prospects, licensees, suppliers, and competitors. We’re confident that we evaluate the technologies of customer service products by the most important, relevant, and actionable criteria. Our approach creates common, supplier-independent and product-independent analyses. These analyses enable the evaluation and comparison of similar customer service products and results in faster and lower risk selection of a product that best fits a set of requirements.

However, we have noticed that the descriptive content that are the bases for our analyses has gotten a bit lengthy and repetitive (repeating information in Customer Best Fit). We plan to tighten up Customer Service Technologies content and analysis in these ways:

  • Tables
  • Focused Evaluation Criteria
  • Consistent Analysis
  • Reporting

Too much narrative and analysis has crept into Tables. We’ll make sure that Tables are bulleted lists with little narrative and no analysis.

Evaluation criteria have become too broad. We’ve been including detailed descriptions and analyses of related and supported resources along with resources that’s the focus of the evaluation. For example, when we describe and analyze the details of a case model, we’ll not also describe and analyze the details of user and customer models. Rather we’ll just describe the relationship between the resources.

Our analyses will have three sections. The first will summarize what’s best about a product. The second will present additional description and analysis where Table content needs further examination. The third will be “Room for Improvement,” areas where the product is limited. This approach will make the reports more actionable and more readable as well as shorter.

In reporting, we’ll stop examining instrumentation, the collection and logging of the data that serves as report input. The presence (or absence) of reports about the usage and performance of customer service resources is really what matters. So, we’ll call the criterion “Reporting” and we’ll list the predefined reports packaged with a product in a Table. We’ll discuss missing reports and issues in instrumentation in our analysis.

Going Forward

Our Product Evaluation Report about Microsoft Dynamics CRM Online Service will be the first to be written on the streamlined Framework. Expect it in the next several weeks. Its Customer Service Best Fit section really is smaller. Each of its Customer Service Technologies sections is smaller, too, more readable and more actionable as well.

Here’s the graphic of our Product Evaluation Framework, reflecting the changes that we’ve described in this post.

Slide1

Please let us know if these changes make sense to you and please let us know if the new versions of the Product Evaluation Reports that leverage them really are more readable and more actionable.

The Helpdesks: Desk.com, Freshdesk, Zendesk

We’ve added our Product Evaluation Report on Freshdesk to our library of in-depth, framework-based reports on customer service software. We put this report on the shelf, so to speak, next to our Product Evaluation Reports on Desk.com and Zendesk. The three products are quite a set. They’re similar in many ways, remarkably so. Here are a few of those similarities:

The products are “helpdesks,” apps designed to provide an organization’s customers (or users) with information and support about the organization’s products and services. Hence, their names are (alphabetically) Desk.com, Freshdesk, and Zendesk.

They have the same sets of customer service apps and those apps have very similar capabilities: case management, knowledge management and community/forum with a self-service web portal and search, social customer service supporting Facebook and Twitter, chat, and telephone/contact center. Case management is the core app and a key strength for all of the products. Each has business rules-based facilities to automate case management tasks. On the other hand, knowledge management and search are pretty basic in all of them.

The three also include reporting capabilities and facilities for integrating external apps. Reporting has limitations in all three. Integration is excellent across the board.

These are products that deploy in the cloud. They support the same browsers and all three also have native apps for Android and iOS devices.

All three are packaged and priced in tiers/levels/editions of functionality. Their licensing is by subscription with monthly, per user license fees.

Simple, easy to learn and easy to use, and cross/multi/omni-channel are the ways that the suppliers position these offerings. Our evaluations were based on trial deployments for each of the three products. We found that all of them support these positioning elements very well.

Small (very small, too) and mid-sized businesses across industries in all geographies are their best fits, although the suppliers would like to move up market. The three products have very large customer bases—somewhere around 30,000 accounts for Desk.com and Zendesk and more than 50,000 accounts for Freshdesk per a claim in August from Freshdesk’s CEO. Note that Desk.com was introduced in 2010, Freshdesk in 2011, and Zendesk in 2004.

Suppliers’ internal development organizations design, build, and maintain the products. All three suppliers have used acquisitions to extend and improve product capabilities.

While the products are similar, the three suppliers are quite different. Salesforce.com, offers Desk.com. Salesforce is a publicly held, San Francisco, CA based, $8 billion corporation founded in 1999. Salesforce has multiple product lines. Freshdesk Inc., offers Freshdesk. It’s a privately held corporation founded in 2010 and based in Chennai, India. Zendesk, Inc. offers Zendesk. This company was founded in 2007 in Denmark and reincorporated in the US in 2009. It’s publicly held and based in San Francisco, CA. Revenues in 2015 were more than $200 million.

These differences—public vs. private, young vs. old(er), large vs. small(er), single product line vs. multiple product line—will certainly influence many selection decisions. However, all three are viable suppliers and all three are leaders in customer service software. The supplier risk in selecting Desk.com, Freshdesk, or Zendesk is small.

Then, where are the differences that result in making a selection decision? The differences are in the ways that the products’ developers have implemented the customer service applications. The differences become clear from actually using the products. Having actually used all three products in our research, we’ve learned the differences and we’ve documented them in our Product Evaluation Reports. Read them to understand the differences and to understand how those differences match your requirements. There’s no best among Desk.com, Freshdesk, and Zendesk but one of them will be best for you.

For example, here’s the summary of Freshdesk evaluation, the grades that the product earned on our Customer Service Report Card. “Freshdesk earns a mixed Report Card—Exceeds Requirements grades in Capabilities, Product Management, Case Management, and Customer Service Integration, Meets Requirements grades in Product Marketing, Supplier Viability, and Social Customer Service, but Needs Improvement grades in Knowledge Management, Findability, and Reporting and Analysis.”

Case Management is where Freshdesk has its most significant differences, differences from its large set of case management services and facilities, its support for case management teams, its automation of case management tasks, and its easy to learn, easy to use case management tools. For example, Arcade is one of Freshdesk’s facilities for supporting case management teams. Arcade is a collection of these three, optional gamification facilities that sets and tracks goals for agents’ customer service activities.

  • Agents earn Points for resolving Tickets in a fast and timely manner and lose points for being late and for having dissatisfied customers, accumulating points toward reaching six predefined skill levels.
  • Arcade lets agents earn “trophies” for monthly Ticket management performance. In addition,
  • Arcade awards bonus points for achieving customer service “Quests” such as forum participation or publishing knowledgebase Solutions.

Arcade lets administrators configure Arcade’s points and skill levels. Its Trophies and Quests have predefined goals; however, administrators can set Quests on or off. The Illustration below shows the workspace that administrators use to configure Points.

arcade points

Freshdesk can be a Customer Service Best Fit for many small and mid-sized organizations. Is it a Best Fit for your? Read our Report to understand why and how.

Zendesk, Customer Service Software That’s Easy to Evaluate

Zendesk Product Evaluation

Zendesk is the customer service offering from Zendesk, Inc. a publicly held, San Francisco, CA based software supplier with 1,000 employees that was founded in 2004. The product provides cloud-based, cross-channel case management, knowledge management, communities and collaboration, and social customer service capabilities across assisted-service, self-service, and social customer service channels.

We evaluated Zendesk against our Evaluation Framework for Customer Service and published our Product Evaluation Report on October 22. Zendesk earned a very good Report Card—Exceeds Requirements grades in Product History and Strategy, Case Management, and Customer Service Integration, and Meets Requirements grades for all other criteria but one, Social Customer Service. Its Needs Improvement grade in Social Customer Service is less an issue with packaged capabilities than it is a requirement for a specialized external app designed for and positioned for wide and deep monitoring of social networks.

Evaluation Framework

Our Evaluation Framework considers an offering’s functionality and implementation, what a product does and how it does it. It also considers the supplier and the supplier’s product marketing (positioning, target markets, packaging and pricing, competition) and product management (release history and cycle, development approach, strategy and plans) for the offering.

We rely on the supplier for product marketing and product management information. First we gather that info from the supplier’s website and press releases and, if the supplier is publicly held, from the supplier’s SEC filings. We speak directly with the supplier for anything else in these areas.

For functionality and implementation, the supplier typically gives us (frequently under NDA) access to the product’s user and developer documentation, the manuals and help files that licensees get. In this era of cloud computing, we’ve been more and more frequently getting access to the product, itself, through online trials. We also read any supplier’s patents and patent applications to learn about the technology foundation of functionality and implementation.

In addition, we entertain the supplier’s presentations and demonstrations. They’re useful to get a feel for the style of the product and the supplier and to understand future capabilities. However, to really understand the product, there’s no substitute for actual usage (where we drive) and/or documentation.

Our research process includes insisting that the supplier reviews and provides feedback on a draft of the Product Evaluation Report. This review process ensures that we respect any NDA, improves the accuracy and usefulness of the information in the report, and prevents embarrassing the supplier and us.

Ease of Evaluation, a New Evaluation Criterion

Our frameworks have never had an Ease of Evaluation criterion. We’ve always figured that we’d do the work to make your evaluation and selection of products easier, faster, and less costly. Our evaluation of Zendesk has us rethinking that. We’ve learned that our Product Evaluation Reports can speed and shorten your evaluation and selection process but that your process doesn’t end with our reports. You do additional evaluation, modifying and extending our criteria or adding criteria for criteria to represent requirements specific to your organization, your business, and/or application for a product. Understanding Ease of Evaluation can further speed and shorten your evaluation and selection process.

So, beginning with our next Product Evaluation Report, you’ll find that Ease of Evaluation criterion in our framework.

Zendesk Was Very Easy to Evaluate

By the way, Zendesk would earn an Exceeds Requirements grade for Ease of Evaluation. We did a 30-day trial of the product. We signed-up for the trial online—no waiting. During the trial we submitted cases to Zendesk Support and we used the Zendesk community forums. In addition, Zendesk.com provided a wealth of detailed information about the product, including technical specifications and a published RESTful API.

Scroll down to the bottom of Zendesk.com’s home page to see a list of UNDER THE HOOD links.

under the hood

Looking at the UNDER THE HOOD links in a bit more detail:

  • Apps and integrations is a link to a marketplace for third party apps. Currently there are more than 300 of them.
  • Developer API is a link to the documentation of Zendesk’s RESTful, JavaScript API. It lists and comprehensively describes more than100 services.
  • Mobile SDK is a link to documentation for Android and iOS SDKs and for the Web Widget API. (The Web Widget embeds Zendesk functionality such as ticketing and knowledgebase search in a website.)
  • Security is a link to descriptions of security-related features descriptions lists of Zendesk’s security compliance certifications and memberships.
  • Tech Specs is a link to a comprehensive collection of documents that describe Zendesk’s functionality and implementation.
  • What’s new is a link to high-level descriptions of recently added capabilities
  • Uptime is a link to info and charts about the availability of Zendesk Inc.’s cloud computing infrastructure
  • Legal is a link to a description of the Terms of Service of the Zendesk offering

We spent considerable time in Tech Specs and Developer API. We found the content to be comprehensive, well organized and easy to access, and well written. The combination of the product trial and UNDER THE HOOD made Zendesk easy to evaluate. And, we did not have to sign an NDA for access to any of this information.

Many suppliers make their offerings as easy to evaluate as Zendesk, Inc. made Zendesk for us. On the other hand, many suppliers are not quite so willing to share detailed information about their products and, especially their underlying technologies. Products and technologies are, after all, software suppliers’ key IP. They have every right to protect this information. They don’t feel that patent protection is enough. Their offerings are much harder to evaluate at the level of our Product Evaluation Reports.

Consider Products That Are Easy to Evaluate

We feel as you should feel that in-depth evaluations are essential to the selection of customer service products. You’ll be spending very significant time and money to deploy and maintain these products. You should never rely on supplier presentations and demonstrations to justify those expenditures. Certainly rely on our reports and use them as the basis for your further, deeper evaluation, including our new Ease of Evaluation criterion. Put those suppliers that facilitate these evaluations on your short lists.

Salesforce Service Cloud

Evaluation of Service Cloud Winter ’15

This week’s report is our evaluation of Salesforce Service Cloud and its collection of tightly integrated but variously packaged and priced features and add-on products—Service Cloud, itself, for case management and contact center support, Salesforce Knowledge for knowledge management, Live Agent for chat, Social Studio for social customer service, and Salesforce Communities for communities and for customer self-service. Winter ’15 is the current release of the offering and the release that we evaluated in this report.

The offering earns an excellent evaluation against the criteria of our Framework for Customer Service Applications. We found no areas where significant improvement is required.

We had last published an evaluation of Service Cloud Winter ’13 on January 24, 2013. Winter ’15 is the sixth of the regular cycle of Winter, Spring, and Summer releases since that date. Every new release has included significant new and/or improved capabilities.

Salesforce Communities – a New Platform for Customer Self-Service

Salesforce Communities is one of the new capabilities in Winter ’15. It packages an attractive set of facilities, facilities that let customers perform a wide range of collaboration and self-service activities and tasks. However, none of these facilities use new technology; all of them have been existing features of Salesforce applications. What’s new and what’s innovative is their use as the platform for customer self-service. With Communities, Salesforce.com has extended the customer service provider-centric, web content-intensive self-service of portals with social and collaborative self-service that lets customers (and customer service agents) answer and solve customers’ questions and problems. Here’s what we mean.

Customers can use Communities’ packaged, portal-style facilities to perform these self-service tasks:

  • Search a Salesforce Knowledge knowledgebase to find existing answers and solutions for similar questions and problems
  • Browse a hierarchy of “Topics” to find existing answers and solutions to their problems in the knowledgebase or within community content.
  • Create new Service Cloud Cases when they can’t find answers and/or solutions via searching or browsing a knowledgebase, or by browsing Topics and community content.
  • Note that during the case creation process, Communities uses Automatic Knowledge Filtering, a Salesforce Knowledge feature, that automatically suggests knowledgebase Articles relevant to the content of the fields of the new Case.
  • Contact support for escalation to assisted-service

Customers can also use Communities’ packaged social and collaborative facilities to perform self-service tasks.

  • Post their questions or problems on a threaded, post-and-reply forum to solicit answers and solutions from other customers or from customer service staff members who monitor community activity. Note that Communities’ threads are implemented with Salesforce Chatter Feeds. Feeds are Twitter-like stacks of posts and replies/comments.
  • Search post-and-reply Feeds to find existing answers and solutions or previously posted questions and problems and replies/comments about them.

You may have read these lists of bullet points and said, “So, what. There’s nothing new here. We already have these facilities on our portal and on our community.” Exactly right, but that separate portal and community approach forces customers to go to two places to find answers and solutions, and, based on the experience that you’ve given them, they go to one place or the other depending on the type of question or problem they have or the quality and usefulness of answers and solutions that they’ve found. Salesforce Communities gives customers one place to go for self-service answers and solutions. One place not two makes it easier and faster for them to do business with you and makes it easier and more efficient for you to do business with them.

community.seagate.com

For example, Seagate Technology LLC, the provider of hard disk drives and storage solutions based in Cupertino, CA, has a Salesforce Communities-based self-service site. Its home page is shown in the screen shot below.

seagate blog1

As a Mac user needing some advice on drives for backups, I clicked on the Mac Storage Topic and was taken to the Mac Storage products page shown below in the next screen shot. This page presents a list of combined questions, (Salesforce Knowledge) Articles, Solved Question, Unsolved Questions, and Unanswered Questions in the center with a drop-down at top of the list to filter the presentation. Links to product-specific pages are at the left.

seagate blog 2

At the bottom of the Mac Storage Product Page are links to additional customer service facilities, including, “Get Help from Support.” We show them in the screen shot below.

seagate blog 3

The Seagate community offers a complete set of easy-to-use self-service facilities. Community-style self-service gives customers everything they need for customer service—finding answers and solutions or getting assisted-service when answers and solutions don’t exist or can’t be found.

Tools and Templates

By the way, Salesforce Communities includes tools and reusable templates that can make it easy and fast to deploy customer self-service communities. Community Designer is the toolset for building and managing the web pages of Communities deployments. Community Designer can also customize the three web page templates packaged with Communities—Koa, Kokula, and Napili. For example the web pages for the Koa self-service template contain facilities that let customers search for or navigate to Salesforce Knowledge Articles by categories called Topics or contact support if they can’t find answers or solutions.

Salesforce.com is changing and improving self-service with Salesforce Communities. What a good idea!

 

 

Framework for Evaluating Customer Service Products

This week’s report is a new version of our Framework for Evaluating Customer Service Software Products. We had two goals for its design. First, we wanted your evaluation, comparison, and selection processes to be simpler and faster. Second, we wanted shorter and more actionable Product Review Reports. The new Framework eliminates evaluation criteria that do not differentiate. For example, we no longer analyze and evaluate web content management for a product’s self-service and assisted-service UIs. These UIs have become a bit static. They’re configurable and localizable, but they’re no longer as customizable and manageable as they had been. The new Framework also decreases the number of factors (sub-criteria) that we consider within an evaluation criterion. For example, the Knowledge Management criterion now has two factors: Knowledge Model, and Knowledge Management Services. The previous version of the Framework examined these and six others.

We also added a criterion—Case Management. When we began evaluating customer service products back in 1993, we felt that case management, while a critical customer service process, was well understood, did not differentiate, and was not really customer-centric. We’ve changed our point of view. We still believe that the purpose for customer service is answering customers’ questions and solving customers’ problems. However, we also recognize that at the point in time that a customer asks a question or poses a problem you might not have an answer or solution available. You create a case to represent that question or problem, your process to resolve the case is a process to find or develop an answer or solution, and its resolution is, itself, the answer or solution. Our evaluation of case management considers four factors that focus on a product’s packaged services and tools for performing the tasks of the case management process. The process includes finding and using case resolutions in communities and social networks.

Customer Service Best Fit and Customer Service Technologies are the Framework’s two top-level evaluation criteria. Customer Service Best Fit presents information and analysis that classifies and describes customer service software products. Customer Service Technologies examines the implementation of a product’s customer service applications. The graphic below shows the Framework, its top-level criteria, and their sub-criteria.

framework

We plan to use the Framework to evaluate every type of customer service product within our current research—case management, knowledge management, virtual assistant, and social network monitoring, analysis, and interaction. The Customer Service Best Fit criterion applies very nicely to any product. The application of the Customer Service Technologies criterion is product-type dependent. Look for our Product Review Report on Salesforce Service Cloud. It will be the first against the new Framework. Based on the draft of that report, the Framework works very nicely.

2Q2013 Customer Service Stars

This week, continuing our tenth year of quarterly updates on the suppliers and products in customer service, we published our 2Q2013 Customer Service Update Report. These reports examine customer service suppliers and their products along the dimensions of customer growth, financial performance, product activity, and company activity. We currently cover eleven leading customer service suppliers. They lead in overall market influence and share, in market segment influence and share, and/or in product technology and innovation.

For 2Q2013, overall customer service performance was mixed but three of our suppliers—Clarabridge, IntelliResponse, and Salesforce.com—earned Customer Service Stars for the quarter. Very briefly, Clarabridge is a privately owned firm based in Reston, VA that was founded in 2005. Clarabridge offers a suite of VoC applications. IntelliResponse is a privately owned firm based in Toronto, ON that was founded in 2000. IntelliResponse offers a suite of virtual agent products. Salesforce.com is public (NYSE:CRM) firm based in San Francisco, CA that was founded in 1999. The company has a broad product that includes Salesforce Service Cloud, which provides case management, knowledge management, contact center, and web self-service applications.

So, what’s a Customer Service Star? Well, since 2009, we’ve been awarding Customer Service Stars for excellent quarterly performance balanced across those dimensions of customer growth, financial performance, products, and company activity. (Since 2010, we’ve also been awarding Customer Service Stars for the year—same criteria across four quarters.) It’s not easy to earn a Customer Service Star and we take awarding them pretty seriously. Here are the award criteria:

  • Customer growth: We examine significant quarter-over quarter acquisition of new customers and additional business from existing customers.
  • Financial performance. We examine quarterly revenue improvement as reported for public companies or as we estimate for private companies based on customer growth, customer base, and pricing.
  • Products. We examine new products, new versions in a quarter.
  • Company activity. We examine new M&A, partnerships, branding, patents, organization, and facilities in a quarter.

Typically, we award one Customer Service Star for a quarter. Frequently, we award none. Three in a quarter is a big deal, especially when many of our suppliers did not have good quarter. Here’s how Clarabridge, IntelliResponse, and Salesforce.com earned their Customer Service Stars for 2Q2013:

Customer growth and financial performance

  • On a base of approximately 250 customer accounts, Clarabridge acquired 10 to 15 new customers and did additional business with 55 to 65 existing customers, driving excellent financial performance
  • On a base of approximately 160 customer accounts, IntelliResponse acquired eight new customers and did additional business with six existing customers, driving very good financial performance.
  • On a base of approximately 165,000 customer accounts, growth in subscription and support revenue indicated that Salesforce.com acquired approximately 21,000 new customer accounts. We estimate that something around 20 percent of them licensed customer service products. Total revenue increased by more than seven percent to $957 million.

Products

  • Clarabridge made one product announcement in 2Q2013: Clarabridge 6.0, a major new version of its VoC application suite.
  • IntelliResponse made two product announcements in 2Q2013: OFFERS, a marketing application that delivers targeted offers within a virtual agent’s answers and VOICES, a Voice of the Customer analytic application. Both apps integrate with IntelliResponse Virtual Agent, “IR’s” virtual agent offering.
  • Salesforce.com made four product announcements: Salesforce Mobile Platform Services, mobile application development tools and programs for building and deploying Android, iOS, HTML5, and hybrid applications, Social.com, a new social advertising application, Salesforce Communities, a community application, and a suite of G2C (Government to Citizen) solutions for federal, state, and local agencies all built on Salesforce.com general-purpose apps.

Company activity

  • Clarabridge made three company announcements: a new corporate logo, web site, and brand for its products, a new general Counsel, and a partnership with Brandwatch for collection and analysis of social data.
  • IntelliResponse was awarded a U.S. patent for its answer matching technology.
  • Salesforce.com made three company announcements: an agreement with NTT to build a cloud-computing data center in the UK, the acquisition of ExactTarget, a marketing automation/campaign management supplier, and the appointment of a new President and Vice Chairman.

Props to all three for an excellent quarter!

We know all three of the companies and their current customer service product offerings very well. During 2013, we published a product evaluation of Clarabridge Analyze, Clarabridge Collaborate, and Clarabridge Engage against our Framework for Customer Social-Service on March 28, 2013. We published a product evaluation of IntelliResponse Virtual Agent (VA) against our Framework for Customer Virtual Assisted-Service on May 9, 2013. We published product evaluations of Salesforce Service Cloud against our Framework for Customer Cross-Channel Customer Service on January 24, 2013 and our evaluation of Salesforce Marketing Cloud Radian6 against our Framework for Customer Social-Service on August 1, 2013.

The three suppliers also made it easy for us to do our research for these product evaluations. All three gave us trial versions of their products as well as access to product documentation. For Clarabridge and IntelliResponse, we also read their appropriate patents and patent applications.

We usually publish our Quarterly Customer Service Update reports early in the third and last month of calendar quarters. IntelliResponse and Salesforce.com run on fiscal years that end on January 31. Their fiscal quarters end a month later than calendar quarters.

In a few weeks, we’ll begin research on our 3Q2013 Customer Service Update Report. Third quarters are summer quarters, quarters when the software business (and many other business) typically, shall we say, relaxes. But, we hope that a Customer Service Star or two will shine.