Insights from the just-released fourth annual Contact Center Satisfaction Index (CCSI) from CFI Group reveal what many in the contact center sector and consumers have long experienced and suspected: offshoring (including nearshoring), mainly to outsourcers, is a “penny-wise but pound-foolish” strategy when it comes to customer satisfaction. And that some companies appear to be listening by limiting calls being handled offshore.

The CCSI report, released just as the U.S. midterm election campaigns swing into high gear and a month before NBC premieres a new sitcom on offshoring called Outsourced, found that offshore contact centers score 27 percent lower in customer satisfaction than those based in the U.S. Foreign-based contact centers score less in every single category, from first call resolution to customer service.

The biggest argument for repatriating a contact center is the almost unprecedented level of dissatisfaction associated with offshore agents, says the study. It found that contact center satisfaction is only 58 out of 100 when the call is handled by an offshore agent, compared to 79 for U.S.-based agents. To put a score of 58 in perspective, satisfaction with the IRS is about the same, with a score of 55. There is also the issue of concern by American consumers of seeing jobs being exported at a time of lingering high unemployment.

The CFI study said U.S. agents are 34 percent more likely to resolve the problem on the first call than those handled offshore. In terms of “soft side” skills such as courtesy and showing a genuine interest to resolve the problem, foreign agents perform relatively closely to their U.S. counterparts.

The study reviewed a dozen different elements of contact center satisfaction and found that the biggest frustration simply comes down to the inability to understand the foreign agent on the other end of the call. This may help account for the results.

While offshore labor costs are a fraction of those in the U.S. and other Western countries (though there are reports that this margin is shrinking with rising wages, benefits and turnover in key locations such as India) the savings are offset also by potential loss of business from annoyed customers.

“If a customer hangs up mad, it isn’t the agent they are going to blame, it’s the company that put them in that position in order to save a buck by sending their call overseas,” warns Sheri Teodoru, CFI Group’s CEO.

Consequently the percentage of consumers being funneled to offshore contact centers located in a declined for the second straight year. In 2009 only nine percent of consumers reported that their most recent call center experience was handled by an offshore agent, down from 15 percent in 2008 – a drop by nearly half in only two years.

Observers note that the CFI study data will if anything show greater dissatisfaction going forward as IVR and other self-service tools handle the less complex calls, leaving the most difficult—and emotionally-charged with impatient callers—for agents to answer. “The decline in offshore call centers shouldn’t come as a surprise,” states Teodoru. “Offshore agents not only serve as fodder for late night comedy sketches, they’re a painful reminder that American jobs continue to be outsourced during a period of high

unemployment.”In addition to measuring the impact of outsourcing on contact center satisfaction, the CCSI report details:

Source:http://www.tmcnet.com/channels/contact-center-outsourcing/articles/97418-offshoring-outsourcing-harmful-customer-service-cfi-report.htm

Guardian News & Media is facing strike action from techies and possibly journalists if it pushes ahead with plans to start outsourcing technical staff.

Although the paper has been an occasional critic of offshoring, the media group (GNM) desperately needs to save money after running up serious losses in recent years. Not that outsourcing between 60 and 80 jobs will save that much – about £1.6m a year, according to estimates.

A Facebook group opposing the outsourcing plan has attracted nearly 800 supporters. About 900 members of staff have signed a petition opposing the offshore push.

A spokesman for GNM said:

“As part of a general review of GNM’s operations we have been considering a range of options for our Enterprise Technology department, which sits within the wider GNM technology function. The aim of this work is to make sure we have access to the full range of skills we need for the future, and to reduce our cost base.

“It has been an open and consultative process throughout, involving stakeholders (including staff) across the organisation. Until we have spoken to staff and their union representatives about the outcome, it would not be appropriate for us to comment further at this stage.”

The first jobs to go will be tech support for desktops and content and print management systems. Staff working for the Guardian contract publishing business are also likely to see their jobs move.

From a lengthy shortlist GNM has chosen HCL as its preferred bidder should the deal go through.

Father of the Unite chapel John Stuttle said on Facebook that the techies should be kept in-house because of the media group’s increasing reliance on its website.

Unite used an open letter to quote CP Scott, the man the Scott Trust is named after: “A newspaper has a moral as well as a material existence, and its character and influence are in the main determined by the balance of these two forces.”

The staff likely to see their jobs move are mostly Unite members, but a couple of NUJ members are also on the list.

If they look likely to lose their jobs too, then we could see Grauniad journos balloting for strike action as well.

The board meets on Thursday, and according to our sources is equally split on whether sending jobs to India is in-line with the Scott Trust’s principles or not.

Those principles include:

• honesty • cleanness (now interpreted as integrity) • courage • fairness • a sense of duty to the reader and the community

Last year saw a wide review at the newspaper group which still lost £54m on turnover of £280m. The year before it made a loss of £74m on turnover of £405.4m. ®

The original version of this story referred to Guardian Media Group – instead of Guardian News & Media – the publisher of the Guardian and the Observer.

Source:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/21/guardian_strike_threat/