By Tom Farqhar, Zeacom

Customer satisfaction and the customer experience for insurance companies can make the difference between revenue gained (customer acquisition and retention) or lost (to a competitor). Organizations that habitually succeed are those that focus on customer loyalty. But what about the ability of poor experiences that create customer disloyalty. Technology, when properly applied, can greatly augment the ability to create long-term customer loyalty.In almost every company you walk into, there are significant opportunities for process improvement and productivity enhancements. Even the most well run enterprises have quantifiable inefficiencies that smart vendors use to justify their solutions. That being the case, it is imperative to take some caution with "canned" approaches to address solutions with the reasoning it is built on "best practices" or "industry benchmarks."

No insurance company operates 100% the same way with 100% of the same needs? There are, of course, true best practices and benchmarks, however, these should be guidelines and not rules. Tailoring a solution to specifically meet an organization's needs may cost more than something directly off the shelf, but more often than not, it can provide a far greater return on investment that outweighs the incremental difference in cost.

What if it takes, on average, five steps to process a customer interaction and on average there are 2,000 interactions per day? This means there are 10,000 opportunities for an error with customers! Errors contribute to customer disloyalty, which in turn leads to lost revenue. This is where technology interoperability comes into play, and where properly applying technology customized to the organizational needs can help.

Have you ever dealt with a customer who had an accident shortly after their policy was cancelled due to non-payment, who then claimed they were not properly notified with any attempt to continue their coverage? The typical way to combat this issue is to record agent calls in order to listen and ascertain whether the customer acknowledged the agent cancelled the call, or if the cancellation letter was 1) mailed and 2) was not returned due to an incorrect address. Then of course the customer will claim they gave their correct address and that a call center or customer service agent must have made an entry error. These are all labor intensive ways to fight such claims. What if instead, these processes were automated and thereby eliminated any potential for costly human error? For example, what if whenever a customer is due to be cancelled for nonpayment, prior to the cancellation they received an automated phone call notifying them of the option to enter a credit or debit card to make the payment in order to continue the policy? How about when people call to cancel, and the agent inputs the cancellation status? It not only sends a letter and email confirming the order, but also tracks from the agent to the person completing the request?

How successful are companies fighting customer disputes on cancelled policies versus those who do not? Especially if it was customized to adapt to the specific organizational needs and processes? A great deal of effort, time and money is spent in marketing and sales efforts to create opportunities to attract new customers and increase the products and services used by current customers. These efforts drive potential customers to inbound sales teams who attempt to close the sales. Yet try as we may to hire the best staff, let us accept reality some people simply perform better than others.

Ever wish that the sales opportunity went to the best available sales agent? Typical inbound queuing delivers calls to the longest idle agent. The longest idle agent is not likely to be the best available sales agent. What if instead, the phone system was connected to the financial database housing agent sales data? The phone system could use the calls-per-agent and sales-per-agent to calculate real time close percentages per agent. As calls come in, a calculation is done in a millisecond to determine the available agent with the highest close percentage and instead delivers the call to them. What impact would that have on overall revenue?

The common myth is that this level of sophistication is priced beyond the reach of the small and medium sized organizations. The truth is this functionality does exist and it is indeed cost-effective. What doesn't exist in most businesses is an established internal system for the real-time categorization of customer contacts. Smart vendors have recognized these projects as not only an additional source of revenue, but also as a means of differentiating their services - becoming more of 'a peer in the boardroom, rather than a vendor in the hallway.' The vice president of a large regional insurance broker recently said "I don't want technology that is neat. I want technology that drives business results."

This is quite a powerful statement to use when evaluating the solutions technology vendors.

About the author:Tom Farqhar is business process consultant for Zeacom, a global provider of unified communications and contact center software for SMEs. For additional information on Zeacom, please visit www.Zeacom.com.What if it takes, on average, five steps to process a customer interaction and on average there are 2,000 interactions per day? This means there are 10,000 opportunities for an error with customers! Errors contribute to customer disloyalty, which in turn leads to lost revenue. This is where technology interoperability comes into play, and where properly applying technology customized to the organizational needs can help.