التحفظ على تقارير خدمة العملاء التي تصل إلى المسؤول في أي قطاع حكومي أو خاص أمر مشروع لسببين؛ الأول أن الأرقام والإحصائيات التي تصل إلى 95% وأكثر في مستوى الرضا؛ لا تعكس واقع العميل في احتياجاته والإجابة على تساؤلاته واستفساراته، وأكبر مؤشر لهذا السبب هو ردود فعل الجمهور في شبكات التواصل الاجتماعي على مستوى الخدمة، التي ليس بالضرورة أن تعكس تلك الردود الرأي العام المجتمعي، لكنها حتماً وقولاً واحداً تمثّل أحد أهم مؤشرات الرأي العام في أي مجتمع، وبالتالي يمكن قياسها وتحليلها.
والسبب الثاني أن هذه التقارير عبارة عن تجميع بيانات للتذاكر أو الشكاوى التي تم فتحها من قبل العملاء، وبالتالي إغلاقها من طرف واحد وهي الجهة وليس العميل، والدليل حجم التذاكر والشكاوى التي يتم فتحها مرة أخرى من قبل العميل الواحد وفي وقت متزامن، كذلك الاتصالات المتكررة في اليوم نفسه من هذا العميل، كما أن هناك مؤشراً آخر وهو النموذج التشغيلي لمراكز الاتصال التي هي عبارة عن ردود موحدة من قبل الموظفين، ولا يوجد في معظمها إجابات واضحة على تساؤلات العميل، وهو ما يجعله أمام وجهة نظر واحدة، وينهي المكالمة مضطراً دون أن يتم حل مشكلته.
المسؤول الناجح والذكي حينما يحضر اجتماعاً لمناقشة تقارير خدمة العملاء في قطاعه؛ يجب أن يكون على طاولة اجتماعه ثلاثة تقارير أخرى؛ الأول يتناول تحليل مؤشرات الرأي العام في شبكات التواصل الاجتماعي حول مستوى الخدمات المقدمة في جهته، والثاني أن يكون لديه تقرير «العميل الخفي» الذي نزل إلى الميدان ورصد أبرز ملحوظات العملاء على الخدمة، والثالث تقرير الملاحظة بالمشاركة، من خلال فريق عمل داخلي محايد ومستقل يتولى الرد على عيّنة من اتصالات العملاء، وفق نموذج للملاحظة والتقييم.
كل هذه التقارير الثلاثة؛ تكشف مدى مصداقية تقارير خدمة العملاء في أي جهة؛ لأن ما هو حاصل الآن أن المسؤول يخرج من اجتماع مناقشة تقرير خدمة العملاء وكل شيء تمام، وأرقام ونسب فلكية، ورضا العملاء في أعلى قمة، ثم يخرج من الاجتماع ويجد هذا المسؤول نفسه أمام هاشتاق بمحتوى سلبي باسمه أو اسم جهته في شبكات التواصل الاجتماعي، ويتفاعل معه الجمهور بفيديوهات وقصص إنسانية واقعية، ويثبتون عكس الأرقام الموجودة، والمستهدفات الصفرية -تصفير مشاكل العملاء- التي هي عبارة عن «كذبة وصدقناها»، والأسوأ من كل ذلك أن معد تقرير «كل شيء تمام» موجود في الظل، والمسؤول وحيداً في الواجهة أمام الجمهور.
جانب آخر، وهو أن بعض أرقام تقارير خدمة العملاء تعتمد على مدخلات تقييم من العملاء أنفسهم، وهذا صحيح، مثل رضا العميل على مستوى الخدمة، أو مستوى الرضا عن الموظف خلال عملية الاتصال، ولكنها غير كافية، والمقصود أنها لا تكفي بدون التقارير الثلاثة التي أشرنا إليها سابقاً، وعلى هذا الأساس لا يمكن الاعتماد على أرقام خدمة العملاء على مبدأ هو «الخصم والحَكَم».
أحمد الجميعة
تقارير خدمة العملاء.. و«هاشتاق» المسؤول!
8 أكتوبر 2025 - 00:08
|
آخر تحديث 8 أكتوبر 2025 - 00:08
تابع قناة عكاظ على الواتساب
The reservation about customer service reports that reach the responsible party in any government or private sector is legitimate for two reasons; the first is that the numbers and statistics that reach 95% or more in satisfaction levels do not reflect the reality of the customer's needs and the answers to their questions and inquiries. The biggest indicator of this reason is the public's reactions on social media regarding the level of service, which do not necessarily reflect the public opinion of the community, but they certainly represent one of the most important indicators of public opinion in any society, and thus can be measured and analyzed.
The second reason is that these reports are merely a compilation of data for tickets or complaints that have been opened by customers, and thus closed by one party, which is the organization, not the customer. The evidence is the volume of tickets and complaints that are reopened by a single customer simultaneously, as well as the repeated calls on the same day from this customer. There is also another indicator, which is the operational model of call centers that consists of standardized responses from employees, and in most cases, there are no clear answers to the customer's inquiries, which leaves them with a single perspective, forcing them to end the call without resolving their issue.
A successful and intelligent official, when attending a meeting to discuss customer service reports in their sector, should have three other reports on the meeting table; the first addresses the analysis of public opinion indicators on social media regarding the level of services provided by their organization, the second should be a "mystery shopper" report that has gone into the field and noted the main observations of customers regarding the service, and the third is a participatory observation report, conducted by a neutral and independent internal team that responds to a sample of customer calls, according to a model for observation and evaluation.
All three of these reports reveal the credibility of customer service reports in any organization; because what is happening now is that the responsible party leaves a meeting discussing the customer service report believing everything is fine, with astronomical numbers and percentages, and customer satisfaction at its peak, only to find themselves facing a hashtag with negative content bearing their name or the name of their organization on social media, where the public interacts with videos and real human stories, proving the opposite of the existing numbers, and the zero-targets - zeroing customer problems - which is a "lie we believed," and worse than all of that is that the author of the "everything is fine" report remains in the shadows, while the responsible party stands alone in the spotlight before the public.
Another aspect is that some of the numbers in customer service reports rely on inputs from customer evaluations themselves, and this is true, such as customer satisfaction with the level of service or satisfaction with the employee during the call process, but it is not sufficient. The implication is that it is not enough without the three reports we mentioned earlier, and on this basis, one cannot rely on customer service numbers based on the principle of "the judge and the jury."
The second reason is that these reports are merely a compilation of data for tickets or complaints that have been opened by customers, and thus closed by one party, which is the organization, not the customer. The evidence is the volume of tickets and complaints that are reopened by a single customer simultaneously, as well as the repeated calls on the same day from this customer. There is also another indicator, which is the operational model of call centers that consists of standardized responses from employees, and in most cases, there are no clear answers to the customer's inquiries, which leaves them with a single perspective, forcing them to end the call without resolving their issue.
A successful and intelligent official, when attending a meeting to discuss customer service reports in their sector, should have three other reports on the meeting table; the first addresses the analysis of public opinion indicators on social media regarding the level of services provided by their organization, the second should be a "mystery shopper" report that has gone into the field and noted the main observations of customers regarding the service, and the third is a participatory observation report, conducted by a neutral and independent internal team that responds to a sample of customer calls, according to a model for observation and evaluation.
All three of these reports reveal the credibility of customer service reports in any organization; because what is happening now is that the responsible party leaves a meeting discussing the customer service report believing everything is fine, with astronomical numbers and percentages, and customer satisfaction at its peak, only to find themselves facing a hashtag with negative content bearing their name or the name of their organization on social media, where the public interacts with videos and real human stories, proving the opposite of the existing numbers, and the zero-targets - zeroing customer problems - which is a "lie we believed," and worse than all of that is that the author of the "everything is fine" report remains in the shadows, while the responsible party stands alone in the spotlight before the public.
Another aspect is that some of the numbers in customer service reports rely on inputs from customer evaluations themselves, and this is true, such as customer satisfaction with the level of service or satisfaction with the employee during the call process, but it is not sufficient. The implication is that it is not enough without the three reports we mentioned earlier, and on this basis, one cannot rely on customer service numbers based on the principle of "the judge and the jury."
