ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART 1 OLS workflow sketch This slide deck...
-
Upload
james-perry -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART 1 OLS workflow sketch This slide deck...
ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART
1
OLS workflow sketchThis slide deck represents major segments of the workflow for Online Submission (OLS). It shows commercial incident routing and resolution. As a basic interactive prototype, it is purely for discussion purposes to center our minds on a specific proposal and gather feedback on it.
The appearance of the prototype is not what PQO will ship. Significant evolution is yet to come on the visual presentation. Suggestions on visuals are trivial and low priority. This prototype is for analyzing the workflow.
Controls and links within the prototype are highlighted with a glowing rectangle. Clicking or, in some cases, hovering over the rectangle will advance the prototype down that path of the workflow. If you want to go back a step, right-click on the slide and select “Last Viewed” from the context menu.
Click the glowing rectangle to advance.
ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART
2
Prototype ScenariosGoing from TechNet article through anonymous submission to a PPI phone call
Viewing an existing incident anonymously
Viewing an existing incident while logged in
Going from TechNet article through anonymous submission to a PID-entitled phone call
Going from a TechNet article through anonymous submission to a PPI chat session, adding a co-worker to the collaboration space to speed incident resolution, saving a local copy and giving feedback
Click here to advance the presentation
3
ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES.
NOT FINAL ART3
DependenciesThis version of this slide deck represents overlays that call out upstream dependent systems and business policies that will need to change in order to realize this vision. The overlays will appear if you click the slide advance arrow on the presentation monitor.
It will not be possible to deliver breakthrough customer experiences without breaking through several barriers introduced by Clarify, E-Support, MS Solve, Order Management, and business policy. This deck attempts to illustrate where the changes will need to be driven, as well as demonstrate what is entirely possible within PQO’s direct sphere of influence.
Start the demonstration
Click slide advance arrow to show dependencies ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION
PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART4
KB Content wrapper?New Jewel project?
Click slide advance arrow to Show Dependencies
Click slide advance arrow to show dependencies ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION
PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART5
GSFx 6.2, gated byRegSys?
Click slide advance arrow to show dependencies
ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES.
NOT FINAL ART6
MSSOLVE and CAP, then SBiS and CAP
after Q2
Click slide advance arrow to show dependencies ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION
PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART7
LCA buy-off on using the SR # and one of these additional
fields to identify the customer; Toji has a potential
solution through http://gethelp
Click slide advance arrow to show dependencies ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION
PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART8
Business policy: Customers need a guarantee of quality
before they will spend a penny confidently.
MSSOLVE: Commercial
customers will often use chat instead of
the phone. MSSOLVE doesn’t support chat.
OneCall, MSSOLVE, CAP: Customers want the rolling
average of the current queue times for every mode of
support. If we can’t deliver, we’ll post the SLA, which is
much less useful to customers
ODDYSEY/PES/SBiS?: Support options and policy and pricing must have the capability of being unique for each
region+support topic, while also allowing an inheritance model from the parent node in the support topic
hierarchy.
9
Click slide advance arrow to show dependencies
Click slide advance arrow to show dependencies ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION
PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART10
Odyssey: we can only enable the entitlements that
Odyssey does online. For the immediate future, the only entitlements we can offer
online are those offered by Clarify. As future entitlements get added in, we can update
this label.
Click slide advance arrow to show dependencies
ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. NOT
FINAL ART11
Odyssey/PES: displaying entitlement remaining (either count or time) will be an important customer aid, but may not
be entirely supported by Odyssey. We could phase in the count/clock later, but we must be driving towards displaying
this data real time on the web. The count must be accurate regardless of
how the previously used incidents were initiated. On Consumer products we
want to be able to extend this to OEMs also, so Dell could list its support
options here
Click slide advance arrow to show dependencies ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION
PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART12
PQO: MUST invest in sufficient PCI compliance to call the OM/SCS APIs and represent the credit card entry screen in place. Throwing the user over the wall
to an outside web site will increase online abandonment.
A reminder of our policy regarding charging for PPI should be present here to increase customer confidence in the
online transaction
ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART
13
Click slide advance arrow to show dependencies ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION
PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART14
MISP, SBIS?: Severity questions need to be configurable by support topic
Business Policy: Must be more crisp here. The ability to specify severity
other than C will increase the relevance of online submission. The commitment
to enabling Sev A submission online will ensure that the phone is not the
only channel for Sev A. If business policy only allows B & C severities
online, then the questions which would assign a sev A should not be asked
online. World class online experience will support online submission of Sev A incidents even if customers are more
likely to reach for the phone.
Click slide advance arrow to show dependencies ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION
PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART15
Phone Queue/OneCall?: We need to be able to bind this
incident, which was entitled and routed entirely online, to a specific technical
support phone queue.
Click slide advance arrow to show dependencies ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION
PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART16
Phone Queue/OneCall?/MSSOLVE/CAP: Displaying the average queue length
alongside a counter indicating the customer’s current time in the queue
Phone Queue/OneCall?/MSSOLVE/CAP: Allowing the user to pause the case or abandon it before SE communication
Business Policy + MSSOLVE/CAP: We can offer a platform for up-selling
add-on services as long as CAP/MSSOLVE can support it
MSSOLVE/CAP: This control must now become dynamic, indicating which party has responsibility for the next
action on the case
Click slide advance arrow to show dependencies
ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. NOT
FINAL ART17
This slide concludes the phone call scenario.Click the collaboration space to advance the prototype
MSSOLVE/CAP: Rich information about the support
professional to break down the anonymity associated with web
interactionsMSSOLVE/CAP:
Support professional can push content here. MUST not be content the customer has
already told us they’ve seen
MSSOLVE/CAP: Support professional can push actions to the customer. Data Collection just one example. File upload, accept a
remote desktop connection, manually perform diagnostic or troubleshooting
are other potential tasks.
MSSOLVE/CAP: Put the action back on Microsoft at any time with an optional explanatory note
field.
MSSOLVE/CAP: Customer can close the case or give feedback to the
support professional’s manager at any time.
Phone support transformedWe have taken the phone only experience and
• Done all entitlement via the web, so the call can go direct to a support professional
• Shown the richness of the online experience allowing the possible association of reliability and accountability with the online experience
• Provided the user with the option of retaining a durable record of the support interaction
• Possibly primed the user for taking the lesser cost online option later
Restart the prototype to explore another scenario
18
Click slide advance arrow to show dependencies ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION
PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART19
MSSOLVE/CAP: E-mail only required for e-mail or chat
incidents. Phone required only for phone or callback incidents.
Click slide advance arrow to show dependencies ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION
PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART20
PQO: MUST invest in sufficient PCI compliance to call the OM/SCS APIs and represent the credit card entry screen in place. Throwing the user over the wall
to an outside web site will increase online abandonment.
A reminder of our policy regarding charging for PPI should be present here to increase customer confidence in the
online transaction
Click slide advance arrow to show dependencies ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION
PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART21
MSSOLVE/CAP/SBIS: Each support topic should be capable of hosting its own set of questions within this user interface. Each topic can default to either free text or guided questions (scoping documents) if available. Guided questions MUST NOT REPEAT
ANY QUESTIONS ASKED EARLIER IN THE WORKFLOW! Guided questions can specify which question is optional vs. required. History control and guided details (scoping documents) may be
present or not depending on support topic
MSSOLVE/CAP: Guided questions should enable the display of help text with links to learn more about how to answer the questions. PQO must hide
help for questions which are not visible in the user interface
PQO: Save incomplete incident (customer choice of e-mail link
or sign-in to preserve state)
ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART
22
Click slide advance arrow to show dependencies ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION
PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART23
PQO: Must invest in PCI compliance to show amount
authorizedOM: must enable the retrieval of
this data by API
ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART
24
Click slide advance arrow to show dependencies ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION
PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART25
PQO?: send e-mail with full details from confirmation page
along with a link to this collaboration space (or is this
MSSOLVE/CAP?)
MSSOLVE/CAP: All customer-bound e-mail communications emerging from these systems
should include a link to the online collaboration space for the
incident in question
ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART
26
Click to dismiss the tooltip
Click slide advance arrow to show dependencies
ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. NOT
FINAL ART27
Click anywhere in the collaboration space to advance to the next UI.
MSSOLVE\CAP: Chat inline within the incident collaboration space
ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART
28
Click slide advance arrow to show dependencies ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION
PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART29
MSSOLVE/CAP: Rich profile data associated with and managed by customer, bound to this case if not signed in and bound to PUID and this case if
signed in
Click slide advance arrow to show dependencies ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION
PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART30
MSSOLVE/CAP: This process allows the customer to create an additional contact on the case. Additional contact authorized only by means of this e-mail, initiating
a process that will bind that customer’s entry point with a single Live ID. Additional forwarding of this e-mail link to others will fail to validate if a single
Live ID has taken the available authorization token, and the case owner will still have a second step of accepting the invited user to the case
Click slide advance arrow to show dependencies ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION
PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART31
MSSOLVE/CAP: primary case contact can delegate to a co-worker or remove a co-worker. This must be propagated immediately back to
the CRM system
ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART
32
Co-worker runs diagnostics. All three collaborate and resolve issue.
ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART
33
ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART
34
Click anywhere in collaboration space to conclude.
ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART
35
ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART
36
ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART
37
Click to dismiss the tooltip
ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART
38
Click to dismiss the tooltip
ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART
39
Click to return to save as dialog
ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART
40
Click the e-mail to return to the collaboration space on hold
ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART
41
Welcome Jerry
Click slide advance arrow to show dependencies ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION
PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART42
Click screen to return to first step in incident submission (not part of planned UX!)
A major technical hole in this strategy: once an anonymous incident is created,
there is no way for the support professional (or the user) to subsequently
bind it to a windows live ID. There will need to be a requirement pushed to CAP/MSSOLVE and all intermediary
systems to allow the support professional to bind a WLID to an existing case. Perhaps
SP collects e-mail address, system sends mail, 1st user of link in mail can bind a
PUID?
ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART
43
This would be the local (offline) copy of the case. Click to return to the collaboration space.
44
OLS workflowAny questions or comments, please send them to courtnec.
Click the glowing rectangle to restart this prototype.
45
(1 0f 2) used
(1 0f 2) used(1 0f 2) used
(1 0f 2) used
(1 0f 2) used