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.


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



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



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



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




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.


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



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


13



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.



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.



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



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



MSSOLVE/CAP: E-mail only required for e-mail or chat

incidents. Phone required only for phone or callback incidents.



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



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)


22



PQO: Must invest in PCI compliance to show amount

authorizedOM: must enable the retrieval of

this data by API


24



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


26

Click to dismiss the tooltip



FINAL ART27

Click anywhere in the collaboration space to advance to the next UI.

MSSOLVE\CAP: Chat inline within the incident collaboration space


28



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



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



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


32

Co-worker runs diagnostics. All three collaborate and resolve issue.


33


34

Click anywhere in collaboration space to conclude.


35


36


37



38



39

Click to return to save as dialog


40

Click the e-mail to return to the collaboration space on hold


41

Welcome Jerry



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?


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.

mailto:courtnec?subject=Feedback%20on%20OLS%20Post%20Research%20#1

45

(1 0f 2) used

(1 0f 2) used(1 0f 2) used

(1 0f 2) used

(1 0f 2) used

only a draft wireframe for discussion purposes. not final art 1 ols workflow sketch this slide deck...

Documents