<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<feed version="0.3" xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xml:lang="en">
<title>Zachary McGeary</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/" />
<modified>2008-02-25T20:18:11Z</modified>
<tagline></tagline>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2008:/analysts/mcgeary/20</id>
<generator url="http://www.movabletype.org/" version="3.121">Movable Type</generator>
<copyright>Copyright (c) 2008, Zachary McGeary</copyright>
<entry>
<title>The IVR Revolution Will NOT Be Televised: We Predicted it First</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/archives/2008/02/the_ivr_revolut.html" />
<modified>2008-02-25T20:18:11Z</modified>
<issued>2008-02-25T12:08:36Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2008:/analysts/mcgeary/20.9522</id>
<created>2008-02-25T12:08:36Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">A recent BusinessWeek story highlights the dwindling popularity of the pro-consumer crusade established by GetHuman.com. Page views on the site have dwindled from about 40,000 a day in the spring of 2006 to some 4,000. The discussion board, while still active, has quieted down since 2006, when thousands of comments...</summary>
<author>
<name>Zachary McGeary</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Site Technologies</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/">
A recent BusinessWeek story highlights the dwindling popularity of the pro-consumer crusade established by GetHuman.com.

Page views on the site have dwindled from about 40,000 a day in the spring of 2006 to some 4,000. The discussion board, while still active, has quieted down since 2006, when thousands of comments were streaming in. And 18 months after the &quot;standard&quot; was announced—companies that adopted the criteria would have earned the right to use an &quot;auditory icon,&quot; or tone, that would signal to callers they had good service—not one company has registered.

Back in November 2005 we highlighted one of the holes in this straight-to-agent methodology:

While I love the story, I don&apos;t really see much of an upside to this technique. In some cases, sure, this may help. But depending on how the business you are contacting operates, you may actually be compromising or even negating the potential for actually getting directly to the most appropriate agent or even time savings.

This ongoing story begs the question &quot;How much and in which ways do customers really care about IVR as a service touch point?&quot;  In short, they simply don&apos;t.  Yes, satisfaction has remained notoriously low, and has even experienced some erosion over the last 6 years.  But consumer adoption of IVR is not &quot;opt-in&quot;, as most consumers call customer service expecting to speak with an agent.

While getting to a live agent as quickly as possible would fit within consumers&apos; ideals for customer servicing, I imagine most have found that they are still spending the time identifying themselves and getting bounced around from agent to agent as their particular servicing needs are made clear.  So does getting to agent as quickly as possible really lower time to resolution?  I&apos;m afraid not.

I must point out, however, that most IVR systems to date are still not well-integrated with agent desktop apps.  Consumers are still largely required to provide information about themselves through the automated system for routing and queuing purposes, and then required to provide the same information again to CSRs when their inquiry is ultimately handled.

As far as the failure of the GetHuman standard goes, Paul English is spot on:

English learned that no matter how effective online consumer crowds may be, full-blown change still takes the passion and energy of committed individuals. &quot;If you&apos;re going to try to do a standard,&quot; he says, &quot;you need someone who is really going to drive it.&quot;

JupiterResearch&apos;s take is that dismal IVR performance has left so many consumers disenchanted that they feel they are facing a losing, uphill battle.  Even in a world of dissatisfaction and frustration with IVR, it appears that apathy and resignation are the more dominant consumer attitudinal characteristics.  The battle for IVR improvement will continue to be one of attrition, not change or revolution.

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Holiday Customer Service: Retailers, Are You Ready?</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/archives/2007/12/holiday_custome_1.html" />
<modified>2007-12-17T12:13:50Z</modified>
<issued>2007-12-17T07:11:43Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2007:/analysts/mcgeary/20.9287</id>
<created>2007-12-17T07:11:43Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">The holidays are upon us, so by now you know the answer to this question. Good luck. In a recently published report, we highlight the primary areas retailers addressed this year to manage a seasonal flux of inbound inquiry. Most are adding staff, either temporary or permanent. Others are bolstering...</summary>
<author>
<name>Zachary McGeary</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Site Technologies</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/">
The holidays are upon us, so by now you know the answer to this question.  Good luck.

In a recently published report, we highlight the primary areas retailers addressed this year to manage a seasonal flux of inbound inquiry.  Most are adding staff, either temporary or permanent.  Others are bolstering existing email response management resources.

There are myriad best practices beyond staffing and new technology that can ease your holiday inbound inquiry blues.  For more information, you must check out Customer Service During the Holidays: Managing Increased Inbound Inquiry Volume.

As well, in a few weeks time, I&apos;ll be able to provide you with a benchmark of exactly how well retailers did in areas concerning email response (also see here).  Stay tuned.

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Holiday Customer Service Email Response Performance.  Shame On You.</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/archives/2007/12/holiday_custome.html" />
<modified>2007-12-11T14:37:32Z</modified>
<issued>2007-12-10T19:14:00Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2007:/analysts/mcgeary/20.9263</id>
<created>2007-12-10T19:14:00Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">I am back in the midst of our Annual Customer Service &amp; Support Webtrack, a well-vetted methodology for evaluating customer service &amp; support availability and performance during this peak holiday season. This year we will be focusing exclusively on email response performance. Preliminary data show a continuation of well-established trends....</summary>
<author>
<name>Zachary McGeary</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Site Technologies</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/">
I am back in the midst of our Annual Customer Service &amp; Support Webtrack, a well-vetted methodology for evaluating customer service &amp; support availability and performance during this peak holiday season.  This year we will be focusing exclusively on email response performance.  Preliminary data show a continuation of well-established trends.  Namely, an almost complete disregard for email response management best practices among even top organizations.  This is something, that in four years, I still cannot fathom.
 
Such poor performance has significant impact on customer behavior.  Consumers, after all, wish to be provided with the same level of service across ALL touch points.
 
In a world of ubiquitous &quot;Customer Experience&quot;, &quot;Loyalty &amp; Retention&quot; and &quot;satisfaction&quot; initiatives, how can this rightly be happening?  There are several documented answers, none of which are being addressed widely: inappropriate software (e.g. Outlook, Lotus Notes, homegrown solutions), failure to adhere to best practices for managing email inquiries and poorly/rarely integrated knowledge management.  This report is a must-read for all organizations exploring the possibility of approaching all three of these issues effectively.
 
Email is largely leveraged as a &quot;reactive&quot;, not strategic, channel.  This is a huge part of my theory on why companies are not dedicating appropriate resources.  Yes, drastic increases in inbound email inquiry volume are challenging even the top performers.  Companies who don&apos;t have the appropriate resources in place are doing a great disservice to a growing portion of their customer base.  Not to mention, experiencing  low customer satisfaction levels and increased customer service costs due to re-contact via relatively more expensive touch points.
 
Based on previous research, consumers are more likely to turn to phone more than any other touch point if their email inquiry is not resolved within their expectations.  That is costly.  C&apos;mon guys.  If you want to cut costs by deploying email, then commit to applying appropriate resources and best practices to preempt those expensive phone calls.  There, in addition to the productivity improvements that packaged email response management software can provide, IS where cost-savings can be found.
 
I&apos;ll be back here to announce some high-level results from this webtrack.  Clients, you may of course peruse the report when it is published, likely before year-end.  I expect to be back here at that time continuing to shake my finger at the organizations that continue to neglect their email response management initiatives.  Why, when organizations that ARE applying appropriate resources are actually improving performance, do you continue to choose to be sub-par?  That is a challenge.  If you wish to explore opportunities to discover email response management best practices and what exactly &quot;appropriate resources&quot; are, please don&apos;t hesitate to contact us.  We are standing by.  Clients.  Non-clients.

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Just When You Hadn&apos;t Heard Much News About Outsourcing...</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/archives/2007/08/just_when_you_h.html" />
<modified>2007-08-06T15:03:20Z</modified>
<issued>2007-08-06T12:05:31Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2007:/analysts/mcgeary/20.8765</id>
<created>2007-08-06T12:05:31Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">With their recent acquisitions of call centers in Reno, Ohio, Mumbai-based Tata Group now brings us &quot;insourcing&quot;. Their 250 person call center answers calls for Expedia. The advantages of &quot;insourcing&quot;: Some companies feel hearing a fellow American makes callers feel more comfortable. Other foreign firms think Americans bring a more...</summary>
<author>
<name>Zachary McGeary</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Site Technologies</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/">
With their recent acquisitions of call centers in Reno, Ohio, Mumbai-based Tata Group now brings us &quot;insourcing&quot;.  Their 250 person call center answers calls for Expedia.  The advantages of &quot;insourcing&quot;:


Some companies feel hearing a fellow American makes callers feel more comfortable. Other foreign firms think Americans bring a more entrepreneurial attitude to their work. In Expedia&apos;s case, its call-center workers need a firm grasp on U.S. geography.

Interesting indeed.  These US-based reps will cost you a rough 40 percent premium over &quot;outsourced&quot; reps.

Article here.

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Introducing Vovici (voh-VEE-see)</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/archives/2007/04/introducing_vov.html" />
<modified>2007-04-04T16:52:40Z</modified>
<issued>2007-04-03T18:19:54Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2007:/analysts/mcgeary/20.8095</id>
<created>2007-04-03T18:19:54Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">This morning, Vovici announced it&apos;s company and product re-branding (this is the merger of Perseus and WebSurveyor) as well as a new product. The new product is called EFM Reporting and is meant to provide greater insight to survey and campaign results beyond pie and bar charts. The remaining products...</summary>
<author>
<name>Zachary McGeary</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Site Technologies</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/">
This morning, Vovici announced it&apos;s company and product re-branding (this is the merger of Perseus and WebSurveyor) as well as a new product.  The new product is called EFM Reporting and is meant to provide greater insight to survey and campaign results beyond pie and bar charts.  The remaining products in the Vovici suite are re-branded products from Perseus and WebSurveyor.  One of the key challenges for enterprises moving forward will be extracting actionable data from the glut of data they are likely collecting via online feedback channels.

For more information on our (cautiously) optimistic take on this market, see this report.

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Text Chat: Not Just For Service Anymore</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/archives/2007/03/text_chat_not_j.html" />
<modified>2007-03-29T22:24:51Z</modified>
<issued>2007-03-29T17:24:58Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2007:/analysts/mcgeary/20.8073</id>
<created>2007-03-29T17:24:58Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">Following up on a post from October, JupiterResearch just published a report called Real-time Online Interaction Strategies: Opportunities for Managing Higher-Cost and Higher-Value Online Interactions (link here). The report details how companies are leveraging proactive outreach via either chat or click-to-call to: * Increase Average Order Value * Increase Conversion...</summary>
<author>
<name>Zachary McGeary</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Site Technologies</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/">
Following up on a post from October, JupiterResearch just published a report called Real-time Online Interaction Strategies: Opportunities for Managing Higher-Cost and Higher-Value Online Interactions (link here).  The report details how companies are leveraging proactive outreach via either chat or click-to-call to:

* Increase Average Order Value
* Increase Conversion Rates
* Lower inquiry handle times

Proactive service is nothing new, but this is different.  Proactive outreach via online real-time interaction touch points provides the opportunity to service customers within the context of an interaction (e.g. online purchase, online inquiry resolution).  This is a hot topic, expect the vendors in this space (e.g. Talisma, RightNow, eStara, LivePerson, KANA, InstantService, etc.) to be making big marketing pushes for these products this year.

Naturally, JupiterResearch will have plenty more to say on this topic.  Stay tuned!

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Are Service Organizations Simply Outsourcing Inefficiency?</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/archives/2007/03/are_service_org.html" />
<modified>2007-03-26T16:15:52Z</modified>
<issued>2007-03-26T11:15:46Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2007:/analysts/mcgeary/20.8021</id>
<created>2007-03-26T11:15:46Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">While many companies are increasingly ceding full control of contact center operations to an outsourcer, Lillian Vernon is bringing it back in-house. In this article, representatives cite several areas of efficiency that allowed them to do this. --Reduced call handle time by 36 seconds --Eliminated third-party sales promotions --Reduced IVR...</summary>
<author>
<name>Zachary McGeary</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Site Technologies</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/">
While many companies are increasingly ceding full control of contact center operations to an outsourcer, Lillian Vernon is bringing it back in-house.  In this article, representatives cite several areas of efficiency that allowed them to do this.

--Reduced call handle time by 36 seconds
--Eliminated third-party sales promotions
--Reduced IVR interaction handle time by 20 seconds
--Reduced product SKUs by 20 percent

This raises an important question for call center mangagers who are considering outsourcing operations to meet customer demand (inquiry volume): Are there existing inefficiencies that can be addressed that would eliminate the need to outsource service operations?

Based on their expectation of a 30 percent increase in inquiry volume in it&apos;s Virginia Beach-based contact center, just 23 percent of inquiry volume was being handled in their Philippines-based call center.

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Lots of Chat Chatter</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/archives/2006/10/lots_of_chat_ch.html" />
<modified>2006-10-18T16:02:06Z</modified>
<issued>2006-10-18T11:00:12Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2006:/analysts/mcgeary/20.7237</id>
<created>2006-10-18T11:00:12Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">We&apos;ve been talking about the growing popularity of chat (and click-to-call) as a service tool for several years now, based largely on more flexible and targeted deployments. Chat is not a one-size-fits-all solution, folks. Recent news is lending some proof to our speculation and vindicating the value of automation as...</summary>
<author>
<name>Zachary McGeary</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Site Technologies</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/">
We&apos;ve been talking about the growing popularity of chat (and click-to-call) as a service tool for several years now, based largely on more flexible and targeted deployments.  Chat is not a one-size-fits-all solution, folks.  Recent news is lending some proof to our speculation and vindicating the value of automation as well.

Colleague Diane Clarkson is right, proactive service is a big deal.
Early adopters of real-time interaction technology are capitalizing on this more intimate level of service as a (at the very least, short-term) differentiator.  And deploying chat strategically via business rules allows companies to engage consumers as they wish, typically at the point where a business transaction or relationship is at risk.  While proactive service via chat/click-to-call is certainly a concept worth exploring, companies should be warned that as business rules become more granular the concept begins morphing away from &quot;proactive service&quot; and more towards &quot;proactive sales&quot;.  For more on this idea, see Customer Service Through Text Chat: Balancing Availability and Value for Consumers.

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Online Self-service Webinar</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/archives/2006/08/online_selfserv.html" />
<modified>2006-09-20T20:38:24Z</modified>
<issued>2006-08-21T08:48:19Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2006:/analysts/mcgeary/20.4936</id>
<created>2006-08-21T08:48:19Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">Join me tomorrow, 2pm EDT/11am PDT, for a webinar on next-generation online self-service. I will be discussing the current shortcomings of online self-service deployments and the simple, practical investments companies must make to provide satisfactory online self-service. Hope to see you there!...</summary>
<author>
<name>Zachary McGeary</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Site Technologies</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/">
Join me tomorrow, 2pm EDT/11am PDT, for a webinar on next-generation online self-service.  I will be discussing the current shortcomings of online self-service deployments and the simple, practical investments companies must make to provide satisfactory online self-service.  Hope to see you there!

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Research Alert: Online Self-service Metrics</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/archives/2006/08/research_alert.html" />
<modified>2006-09-20T20:38:24Z</modified>
<issued>2006-08-01T16:00:58Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2006:/analysts/mcgeary/20.4934</id>
<created>2006-08-01T16:00:58Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">&quot;Online Self-service Search Metrics: Evaluating Opportunities for Failed- Search Recovery in Last Mile&quot; has been published. This report examines how well companies are managing the effectiveness of their onlne self-service search investments. Bottom line, adherence to best practices for search result display and failed search recovery is minimal. Even companies...</summary>
<author>
<name>Zachary McGeary</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Site Technologies</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/">
&quot;Online Self-service Search Metrics: Evaluating Opportunities for Failed- Search Recovery in Last Mile&quot; has been published.  This report examines how well companies are managing the effectiveness of their onlne self-service search investments.  Bottom line, adherence to best practices for search result display and failed search recovery is minimal.  Even companies attempting best practices are failing to execute in the last mile.

For more insight into best practices for online self-service search and failed search recovery in the last mile, check out the report.

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Apple Re-thinks India Call Center Strategy</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/archives/2006/06/apple_rethinks.html" />
<modified>2006-09-20T20:38:24Z</modified>
<issued>2006-06-08T10:00:17Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2006:/analysts/mcgeary/20.4933</id>
<created>2006-06-08T10:00:17Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">There is not much in the way of available facts at this point, beyond: :: Apple announces plans to launch Bangalore-based call center (March 9, 2006) :: Apple announces plans to scrap Bangalore-based call center plans (June 5, 2006) It&apos;s unclear exactly which factors influenced Apple&apos;s decision, but one comment...</summary>
<author>
<name>Zachary McGeary</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Site Technologies</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/">
There is not much in the way of available facts at this point, beyond:

:: Apple announces plans to launch Bangalore-based call center (March 9, 2006)
:: Apple announces plans to scrap Bangalore-based call center plans (June 5, 2006)

It&apos;s unclear exactly which factors influenced Apple&apos;s decision, but one comment may lend validation to the growth of viable contact center outsourcing locations outside of India:

Apple spokesperson: &quot;We have re-evaluated our plans and have decided to put our planned support center growth in other countries.&quot;

According to an unverified news source, Apple had already hired 30 Bangalore-based support staffers, now likely laid off.  There were no other details provided.

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>RightNow Technologies Bolsters CRM Offering With $9 Million SalesNet Acquisition</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/archives/2006/05/rightnow_techno_2.html" />
<modified>2006-09-20T20:38:24Z</modified>
<issued>2006-05-23T08:46:43Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2006:/analysts/mcgeary/20.4932</id>
<created>2006-05-23T08:46:43Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">Press Release here. The acquisition will add: --26 employees --12 offshore development contractors --deployments of up to 2500 users (several hundred total clients) Interesting, the news is less about SFA and more about experience management. Regardless, the acquisition will accelerate RightNow&apos;s Sales product roadmap. RightNow Technologies Salesnet...</summary>
<author>
<name>Zachary McGeary</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Site Technologies</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/">
Press Release here.

The acquisition will add:
--26 employees
--12 offshore development contractors
--deployments of up to 2500 users (several hundred total clients)

Interesting, the news is less about SFA and more about experience management.  Regardless, the acquisition will accelerate RightNow&apos;s Sales product roadmap.

RightNow Technologies
Salesnet

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Coverage Area Launch: Customer Service and Support (formerly CRM)</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/archives/2006/03/coverage_area_l.html" />
<modified>2006-09-20T20:38:24Z</modified>
<issued>2006-03-06T13:00:05Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2006:/analysts/mcgeary/20.4930</id>
<created>2006-03-06T13:00:05Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">We have officially launched Customer Service and Support, the re-branded coverage area formerly known as Customer Relationship Management. This change is meant only to better reflect the nature and scope of our coverage. In fact, actual research and analysis will remain unchanged. This is going to be a very exciting...</summary>
<author>
<name>Zachary McGeary</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Site Technologies</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/">
We have officially launched Customer Service and Support, the re-branded coverage area formerly known as Customer Relationship Management.  This change is meant only to better reflect the nature and scope of our coverage.  In fact, actual research and analysis will remain unchanged.

This is going to be a very exciting year for Customer Service &amp; Support research.  Clients wishing to discuss our upcoming research agenda with me should reach out via their client services manager.  For non-clients, if you don&apos;t wish to miss the boat, become a client.

For more information on JupiterResearch&apos;s overall research architecture enhancements, click here.

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>OnDemand Performance Transparency</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/archives/2006/02/ondemand_perfor.html" />
<modified>2006-09-20T20:38:23Z</modified>
<issued>2006-02-27T16:41:41Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2006:/analysts/mcgeary/20.4929</id>
<created>2006-02-27T16:41:41Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">Not new(s), but Salesforce released Trust, a portal which provides some transparency into the performance of their (of late) beleaguered network. Cool dashboard design, green and red lights, pop-up windows for more information. And if stuff like this makes any sense to you, you&apos;ll even find value in the information....</summary>
<author>
<name>Zachary McGeary</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Site Technologies</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/">
Not new(s), but Salesforce released Trust, a portal which provides some transparency into the performance of their (of late) beleaguered network.  Cool dashboard design, green and red lights, pop-up windows for more information.  And if stuff like this makes any sense to you, you&apos;ll even find value in the information.

Detail
Complications in our recovery process from NA1 hardware failure caused a brief disruption for SSL.

Root Cause
At 7:12pm PST, the SSL instance experienced a brief disruption in service following the manual restart of our NA1 database. Availability was restored at 7:19pm PST.

What I&apos;d like to see is an RSS feed, for proactive notification of network status.  Also, would like to see aggregate uptime performance metrics in real-time.

DISCLAIMER: This resource doesn&apos;t actually improve network performance!  It is only meant to build &quot;trust&quot;.

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Meet Me At Call Center Demo and Conference, Austin, TX, February 7</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/archives/2006/02/meet_me_at_call.html" />
<modified>2006-09-20T20:38:23Z</modified>
<issued>2006-02-01T16:14:07Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2006:/analysts/mcgeary/20.4928</id>
<created>2006-02-01T16:14:07Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain"> I will be in Austin, TX, on February 7 speaking at the Call Center Demo and Conference. The session is titled &quot;Prepare Today for Tomorrow&apos;s Customer Care Technology&quot;. My presentation will focus on consumer behavior and attitudes towards emerging consumer-facing voice technology (e.g VoIP, Voice-enabled IVR) and how investments...</summary>
<author>
<name>Zachary McGeary</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Site Technologies</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mcgeary/">

I will be in Austin, TX, on February 7 speaking at the Call Center Demo and Conference.  The session is titled &quot;Prepare Today for Tomorrow&apos;s Customer Care Technology&quot;.  My presentation will focus on consumer behavior and attitudes towards emerging consumer-facing voice technology (e.g VoIP, Voice-enabled IVR) and how investments in such technologies should fit into larger multichannel service initiatives.

As well, I would love to spend some face time with you some time Tuesday afternoon after 2:30 pm.  If you are interested, reach me at zmcgeary at jupitermedia dot com by Monday evening.

</content>
</entry>

</feed>