Results from the E Source 2011 IVR Benchmark Review

www.esource.com
Results from the E Source 2011
IVR Benchmark Review
Preliminary Results for Payment Tasks
Sarah Fiebiger
Senior Analyst, Market Research Services
@ESourceSarah
March 14, 2011
Monday, March 14, 2011

www.esource.com || © 2011 E Source2
Who Is E SOURCE?
 Membership-based energy advisory service
 Serving the entire energy market, mainly utilities,
plus Fortune 500 company energy managers
 Unbiased research and analysis
 Fuel-neutral
 Product-neutral
 Vendor-neutral
 Program-neutral
 About 80 people on staff

E SOURCE Aims to Help Utilities
 What work-related issues
keep you up at night?
 How to improve containment
within the IVR
 How to improve self-service
on the web
 Using effective messaging
 Improving understanding of
customers needs
 Benchmarking
 And more…

E SOURCE Review of North American
Electric & Gas Company IVRs: 2011
 Focused on the residential customer experience
 Began in December 2010 and concluded in March 2011
 Largest review to-date with 96 gas and electric utilities
 83 U.S.
 13 Canada
 Largest gas & electric companies in the U.S. & Canada
 42 utilities provided us with account access for their IVR

E SOURCE Review of North American
Electric & Gas Company IVRs: 2011
 4 reviewers hired from the local community
 Reviewers gauged functionality and usability
 Tasks were randomly assigned to reviewers
 Focused on tasks residential customers use and expect
to find on their utility’s IVR (same tasks as 2009)
 2 tasks reviewed on mobile phones:
 Make a Payment
 Report an Outage

96 Companies Included in the Review
AEP Ohio
Allegheny Power
Alliant Energy
Ameren
Arizona Public Service
Atmos Energy
Austin Energy
Avista Utilities
Baltimore Gas & Electric
BC Hydro
Black Hills Energy
Centerpoint Energy (MN)
Cleco
Columbia Gas of Ohio
ComEd
Con Edison
Connecticut Light and Power
Consumers Energy
CPS Energy
Dayton Power & Light
Direct Energy
Dominion Virginia Power
DTE Energy
Duke Energy
Duquesne Light
Enbridge Gas Distribution
ENMAX
Entergy Louisiana
EPCOR
Florida Power & Light
Georgia Power
Hawaiian Electric Company
Hydro One Networks
Hydro Ottawa
Hydro-Québec
Idaho Power
Jersey Central Power & Light
Kansas City Power & Light
Laclede Gas
Long Island Power Authority
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power
Louisville Gas & Electric
Manitoba Hydro
Memphis Light, Gas and Water
MidAmerican Energy
Missouri Gas Energy
National Grid New York
NB Power
New York State Electric & Gas
Nicor Gas
Nipsco
NorthWestern Energy
Nova Scotia Power
NSTAR
NV Energy
NW Natural
Oklahoma Gas and Electric
Oklahoma Natural Gas
Omaha Public Power District
Pacific Gas and Electric
PECO Energy
Peoples Gas
Pepco
Philadelphia Gas Works
Piedmont Natural Gas
Portland General Electric
PPL Electric Utilities
Progress Energy Carolinas
Public Service Company of New Mexico
Public Service Electric and Gas
Puget Sound Energy
Questar Gas
Reliant Energy
Rocky Mountain Power
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Salt River Project
San Diego Gas & Electric
Santee Cooper
Silicon Valley Power
South Carolina Electric & Gas
Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas
Southwest Gas
Tacoma Public Utilities
TECO People's Gas
Terasen Gas
Toronto Hydro
Tucson Electric Power Company
TXU Energy
Union Gas
Vectren
Washington Gas
We Energies
Westar Energy
Wisconsin Public Service
Xcel Energy

How We Decided on Tasks to Review
 Self-Service Customer Care in the Energy Industry
market research study conducted
 1000 residential customers surveyed
 U.S. and Canadian customers included
 Asked about their experiences, expectations, and
preferences
 Research on IVR best practices inside and outside
the utility industry
 Feedback and discussions with industry experts

Tasks Included in the 2011 Review
Credit
 Disconnect Status
 How to Reconnect Service
 Payment Arrangement
 Payment Extension
General
 Reach a CSR
 Report an Outage or Emergency (Mobile)
 Moving In / moving Out
 Work Order Status
Payment
 Account Balance
 Make a Payment (Mobile)
 Payment Address
 Payment History
 Payment Locations
54% of a utility’s score is based on payment-related tasks!

Usability Rating Interpretation
5 (very good) Excellent experience; easy to find and/or use;
suggestions for improvement, if any, are minor
4 (good) Good experience; reasonably easy to find and/or use;
has area(s) that needs improvement
3 (average) Average experience; neither easy nor difficult to find
and/or use; has obvious areas that need improvement
2 (poor) Poor experience; difficult to find and/or use; requires
significant improvements
1 (very poor) Very poor experience; the option is present in the IVR,
but is extremely difficult to find and/or use; requires
significant improvements to be usable
Rating Interpretation
© E SOURCE

Review Process
1. Reviewer is randomly assigned a utility and
scenario
2. Calls the utility and attempts to accomplish the
task, using account access when provided*
3. Notes time to find the option for the task
4. Rates their experience
5. Provides commentary about their experience
*Reviewers stop when they think the next step might process a change
to the account

Payment Tasks: % of IVRs Where Found
Note: Preliminary data
© E SOURCE
Task
% IVRs Where Found
(North America)
% IVRs Where Found
(Canada)
Account Balance 74 92
Make a Payment (Mobile) 82 38
Payment Address 46 15
Payment Arrangement 58 54
Payment Extension 33 15
Payment History 15 23
Payment Locations 53 23

Payment Tasks: Average Rating
(1-5 Scale; 1=Very Poor; 5=Very Good)
© E SOURCE
Task
Average Rating
(North America)
Average Rating
(Canada)
Account Balance 3.4 3.1
Make a Payment (Mobile) 3.2 2.6
Payment Address 3.6 3.0
Payment Arrangement 3.6 3.6
Payment Extension 3.4 3.0
Payment History 3.6 3.0
Payment Locations 3.3 3.7

Task
Average Time to Find
in Seconds
(North America)
Average Time to Find
in Seconds
(Canada)
Account Balance 58 84
Make a Payment (Mobile) 57 108
Payment Address 98 154
Payment Arrangement 60 66
Payment Extension 70 99
Payment History 77 88
Payment Locations 74 97
Payment Tasks: Average Time to Find
© E SOURCE

Make a Payment Arrangement:
Scenario
You haven’t been paying your utility bill and your
balance is now so high you can’t afford to pay it.
You want to call your utility and see if you can
arrange to pay down your overdue balance in
monthly installments.

Good Example (Self-Serve)
 U.S. utility
 Usability rating: 1
 Time to find: 56 seconds
 Path to option:
 Account balance, Bill & rate information, or Payment
options >
 To continue to our regular menu of options >
 Payment options >
 Pay your bill in installments
 Listen:

Reviewer Comments For The Example
This was a very functional, efficient and organized phone system which I
navigated through with ease. I found the option for the information I was
looking for fairly quickly, although it took a number of menus to get
there. I like that the option was listed as "pay your bill in installments"
because that was exactly what I was looking for. Once I successfully
entered my account number, which was confirmed by my home address
number, I was told I was eligible for deferred payments! Hooray! I was
told there needs to be a very low down payment (less than $3) which is
helpful if I'm having trouble paying my bill, and then given the option of
paying off the balance in equal installments between 1-12 months.
It was extremely useful to be given the option to select this arrangement
right then and there, to repeat the information, or to go back to the main
billing menu. This phone system is worthy of a 5-rating, because of it's
ease, quickness, thoughtful menu options, and very basic process.

What Made The Example Good?
 Offered early on the main menu
 Logical path to option
 Clearly worded option: “Pay your bill in installments”
 Two authentication methods: Phone or Account #
 Confirmed eligibility for payment installments
 Info. on down payment requirement
 Can set up installment plan for 1-12 months
 Useful follow-up options (select payment installment
option, repeat the information, and for main billing menu)

Good Example (Transfer to CSR)
 Canadian utility
 Path to option:
 For billing and payment matters, meter reading, and rates >
 To make payment arrangements, report a payment, or if
your gas service is being turned off >
 (Account authentication) >
 To make arrangements to pay your bill >
 (Transferred to CSR)

This phone system was a total breeze to navigate and all the menu options
were very clear and concise. I heard the option to make "arrangements
to pay your bill" and was immediately transferred to a CSR. I didn't mind
this so much because I felt confident in my choice that it was most likely
what I was looking for. I especially liked on the main menu that the
option I chose was named "billing matters." It's the word "matters" that
makes it an all-encompassing phrase and leaves me confident in my
choice.

Bad Example
 U.S. utility
 Path to option:
 For all other calls >
 (Account authentication request) >
 If you do not have this information available >
 If you have a billing question, or would like to know if you
are eligible for payment arrangements
 Listen:

…It was a bit of a puzzle finding my option! I actually found it by accident.
First, I chose the option for payment options. My option was not located
in this menu… so I returned to the main menu. It repeated the “Thank
you for calling {{Utility}}, this call may be monitored, etc." again, and then
I chose the option "for all other calls." It prompted me for account
information, and I didn't have it. In this case, it asks that you press the #
key. So, I pressed the # key and it said, "You are now being transferred
to the main menu." I swore it was going to say "transferred to an agent"
or something of the sort, but it surprised me!
Back on the "main menu", the options were almost all different! It even had
EXTRA options! The third option was the option for billing questions or
to find out if you're eligible for payment arrangements... Then it told me
to hold for the next available customer service representative, and gave
me a call back option...
…But the task was hidden in a secret menu!

What Made The Example Bad?
 Repeated “Thank you for calling…” when returning
to main menu
 Confusing navigation
 Reviewer found it by accident
 Authentication required for a generic option, “For All
Other Calls”
 Option was found on a “secret” menu
 Transferred to a different main menu after failing to
authenticate

Key Takeaways
 Canada has room to improve customer experiences
with payment-related tasks on utility IVRs
 Reviewers liked it when credit-related features
transferred them directly to a CSR, although…
 They still appreciate well-executed self-service
 Provide clear options with straight-forward
navigation paths
 Include useful follow-up options after tasks

For More Information
Sarah Fiebiger
Senior Analyst, Market Research Services
303-345-9126 sarah_fiebiger@esource.com
Twitter: @ESourceSarah
Have a question? Ask our experts: www.esource.com/question

Results from the E Source 2011 IVR Benchmark Review

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Results from the E Source 2011 IVR Benchmark Review

Similar to Results from the E Source 2011 IVR Benchmark Review (20)

More from E Source Companies, LLC

More from E Source Companies, LLC (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Results from the E Source 2011 IVR Benchmark Review

Editor's Notes