Copyright © Siemens AG 2013. All rights reserved.For internal use only

Siemens Email Response Management

Munich – November 2013

For internal use only Index Page 2 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

Index

1. Email Response Tool and Service “Attensity Response”

2. Email Response Performance Test 2012

3. Best Practice USA „1-800 SIEMENS“

4. Contact

For internal use only Index Page 3 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

Email Response Management (ERM)

• Siemens ERM is a powerful e-mail and social media response management tool and service.

• The service is based on a professional email respond solution designed by Attensity Europe GmbH

• The ERM team answers standard queries on its own, forwards complex queries to the right contact persons, and filters out spam.

Introduction

For internal use only Index Page 4 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

• Single-source service and standardized answers• Legal certainty thanks to reviewed text modules and defined procedures• Short reaction time – less than 1 day• Automatic text identification and ticketing system• Autoreplies and automatic reply options• Synergies with other Siemens units (such as shared text modules and more)• Reduced workload for Siemens employees• Reduction of IT costs through use of the existing ERM infrastructure• Detailed statistics, configurable according to customer’s wishes• Compliance-conformant archiving

Features and Advantages

For internal use only Index Page 5 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

Attensity respond is providing a ticket and customer administration tool.

Information can be exported to Customer Relation Management (CRM) Tools.

Interface ERM > CRM

For internal use only Index Page 6 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

ERM is able to handle social media content like inquiries coming in via Facebook, Twitter and more.

Step 1: Inquiries are imported to ERM-System.

Step 2: Inquiries are handled within ERM. The agents benefit from ERM advantages.

Step 3: The answer is exported again to the social media plattform.

Social Media

For internal use only Index Page 7 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

• more than 50 Siemens addresses (contact@siemens.com, email.us@siemens.com, answers@siemens.com, metals@siemems.com ...)

• More than 1.8 Mio emails since 2007

References

„Attensity Response“20,000 mails/month

RulesTemplates

KBCCC Sector USHR RU SA AT xxSpam/Trash

Spam / Trash13,000 mails/month

Answers2,500 mails/month

Forwarded3,500 mails/month

No answer necessary1,000 mails/month

contact@

presspictures.cc@

sponsoring.cc@

answers@

email.us@

sustainability@

For internal use only Index Page 8 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

1. Contact Uwe Zinnow(uwe.zinnow@siemens.com)

2. Provide a rough estimation about thenumber of email inquiries (or socialmedia entries) per year.

You will receive an offer depending on the number of emails or entries from our ERM partner Publicis Munich.

How to start

Rules

Autoreply

forward sp+trashanswer

Mails

Autoreply

Forward to- ERM client (Mailminder)- Contact Person (Mail)

Clear?

Answer withtemplates

Request

no

yes

For internal use only Index Page 9 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

3. Provide info how to handle the email inquiries

Publicis will support this step by templates, text modules and (non confidental) contact lists used by other ERM clients.

How to start

For internal use only Index Page 10 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

4. Transfer the email address(es) to the ERM Email-Server. Publicis will support this step.

ERM Team at Publicis will start to work when this step is finished.

In the first weeks there will be a close collaboration between the customer and Publicis in order to adjust rules and text moduls and to optimize respond processes.

Costs

0.85 EUR to 3.59 EUR per email(dependingon type and quantity of incoming emails)

How to start

For internal use only Index Page 11 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

Objective and background:

The objectives of the E-Mail Performance Test are • to gain insights into Siemens’ performance in responding to inquiries, • discover weak spots • and propose approaches for improvement

The test was carried out for the eighth time. In total 22 countries were tested:

E-Mail Performance June / July 2013 1. Test Design

5th = 5th Test Run (June/July 2010) 6th = 6th Test Run (May/June 2011) 7th =7th Test Run (August/September 2012)8th = 8th Test Run (June/July 2013)

1st = 1st Test Run (November 2007) 2nd = 2nd Test Run (May/June 2008)3rd = 3rd Test Run (January/February 2009) 4th = 4th Test Run (August/September 2009)

For internal use only Index Page 12 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

Methodology:

• Design: Mystery Test based on the standard of the Web Excellence Forum (www.webxf.org)

• Test object: contact forms / e-mail addresses on Siemens country websites.• Number of cases: n=12 inquiries per country.• Content: inquiries were written from the perspective of potential customers, covering

four fields: Energy, Healthcare, Industry and Infrastructure & Cities• Language: every country was tested in its respective mother tongue.• Sender: for each country 12 email accounts were created using typical providers,

such as Yahoo, GMX,…• Quality assurance: content of the inquiries had been approved by Siemens CC.• Field time: timeframe for sending and receiving was between June 17th and

July 12th 2013.All inquires were sent during the office hours of the respective country.

E-Mail Performance June / July 2013 1. Test Design

For internal use only Index Page 13 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

Evaluation of reply status:• To rate if an inquiry was replied or not, four reply categories were taken into account:

(1) no reply: no reply at all or a reply given more than 2 weeks after the inquiry was posted. Rated as no reply.

(2) dummy reply: system-generated message with no reference to the question, e.g. error message or confirmation of receipt. Rated as no reply.

(3) qualifying reply: reply, often consisting of standardized text modules, that mostly does not address the question but asks the sender to further qualify himself or his matter. Rated as reply.

(4) full reply: reply that addresses the question, providing a specific answer. Rated as reply.

Evaluation of response rate and response time:

• The test evaluates response rate and response time; the combination of the two indicators constitutes the E-Mail Performance Index (EP-Index), which ranges from 0-100 points.

• Calculation of the EP-Index:

• each inquiry with “no reply” received a score of “zero”

• for each reply a score was assigned to the response time (evaluation was per hour of business day; weekends were subtracted from the response time)

• the EP-Index is the sum of the individual scores divided by the number of inquiries

E-Mail Performance June / July 2013 1. Test Design

For internal use only Index Page 14 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

E-Mail Performance June / July 2013 2. Average Response Rate (by Reply Category)

Full replies make up half of all replies. Almost every sixth inquiry is responded to

by a qualifying reply. Dummy replies are rare.

Comment: The split for the average response rate of 63% is: 50 percentage points (%p) full replies +13%p qualifying replies. 37 percent of all inquiries received no reply. This includes 4%p dummy replies.

n=262 (12 inquiries x 22 countries)

33% (39%)

4% (4%)

13% (17%)

50% (40%)no reply

dummy reply

qualifying reply

full reply

( ) results 2012

For internal use only Index Page 15 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

E-Mail Performance June / July 2013 2. Average Response Rate (Accumulated Over Time)

63% of all inquiries received a reply (57% in 2012) – almost 90% of these

within two days; almost 2/3 within 8 hours

Comment: Overall the gain in response rate over time is high within the first 48 hours. Afterwards it turns out to be incremental.But: After 2 weeks more than one third of all inquiries are left without reply.

User Expectation Frame

2 hours 8 hours 24 hours 2 days 3 days 1 week 2 weeks0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

32%

45%49%

57% 58%62% 63%

For internal use only Index Page 16 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

Trend: Average response rate increases

E-Mail Performance June / July 2013 2. Response Rate: Comparison With Previous Test Runs

Comment: Compared to the 7th test run (TR) the average response rate across all countries increases from 57 to 63 percent.

N = number of countries per test run

ø 1st TR 2007(N=2)

ø 2nd TR 2008(N=8)

ø 3rd TR 2009(N=15)

ø 4th TR 2009(N=15)

ø 5th TR 2010(N=17)

ø 6th TR 2011(N=17)

ø 7th TR 2012(N=20)

ø 8th TR 2013(N=22)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

18%

33%

23%

48%43%

35%

57%63%

For internal use only Index Page 17 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

E-Mail Performance June / July 2013 2. Average Response Rate (by Country)

Response rates vary widely – from 33 to 100 percent (from 17 to 92 percent in 2012)

Comment: Two countries reach response rates of 100 percent, but the share of full replies is considerably lower. Response rates for three countries (with 33 percent) are rather low. Response rates for seven countries are completely based on full replies to inquiries.

Average Response Rate (63%)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

58% 50%

75%67%

75%

42%

100%100%

70%

33%

50%58%

75%

58% 58%

33% 33%

83% 83%75%

50%

67%

full reply qualifying reply

100%100%

For internal use only Index Page 18 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

Trend: Average response time speeds up compared to the previous run

E-Mail Performance June / July 2013 3. Response Time: Comparison With Previous Test Runs

Comment: Compared to the 6th and the 7th test runs (TR) the average response time clearly improves from 40 hours in 2011 and 22 hours in 2012 to 16 hours today.

N = number of countries per test run

ø 1st TR 2007(N=2)

ø 2nd TR 2008(N=8)

ø 3rd TR 2009(N=15)

ø 4th TR 2009(N=15)

ø 5th TR 2010(N=17)

ø 6th TR 2011(N=17)

ø 7th TR 2012(N=20)

ø 8th TR 2013(N=22)

0

20

40

60

80

12

47 49

3034

40

22

16

ho

urs

For internal use only Index Page 19 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

E-Mail Performance June / July 2013 3. Average Response Time (by Country)

Results cover an average time span per country from 1h to almost 2 days.

Average Response Time (16h)

Comment: Average response time for all countries was 16 hours. With 1 hour the best performer was fastest (based on only four responses), followed by countries with 2 hours, 5 hours and again 5 hours.2 countries (45h and 43h) exceed the average by far.

0

20

40

60

80

17

43

16 18

117

10 8

27

1

45

5

27

8

25

17

11

1924

52

19

ho

urs

For internal use only Index Page 20 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

Trend: Average EP-Index increases

E-Mail Performance June / July 2013 4. EP-Index: Comparison With Previous Test Runs

Comment: As is the case for response rate and time, the EP-Index improved compared to the 7th test run (TR) from 47 to 53 points.

Response within8 hours = 100 points24 hours = 80 points3 days = 50 points1 week = 30 points2 weeks = 10 points

N = number of countries per test run

ø 1st TR 2007(N=2)

ø 2nd TR 2008(N=8)

ø 3rd TR 2009(N=15)

ø 4th TR 2009(N=15)

ø 5th TR 2010(N=17)

ø 6th TR 2011(N=17)

ø 7th TR 2012(N=20)

ø 8th TR 2013(N=22)

0

20

40

60

80

100

1619

14

37

2824

4753

po

ints

For internal use only Index Page 21 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

EP-Indices range from 28 to 94 points (out of 100)

E-Mail Performance June / July 2013 4. EP-Index (by Country)

Average EP-Index (53 points)

Comment: The average EP-Index over all countries is 53 points (on a scale from 0 to 100).2 countries show the best performance (94 points and 90 points). All other values are considerably lower.EP-Index is very poor for 3 countries (28 and 29 and 29).

Response within8 hours = 100 points24 hours = 80 points3 days = 50 points1 week = 30 points2 weeks = 10 points

0

20

40

60

80

100

47

31

58 57

67

38

9094

59

2934

54 55 54

43

28 29

65 68 67

50 51

po

ints

For internal use only Index Page 22 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

Comment: The country responded to all inquiries, but only half of them received a full reply.The maximum performance score for three topics justifies the best overall performance.Compared to last year’s test run, the response time has remarkably improved.

5. Performance Indicator Overview(Example for the best performer in response rate and EP-Index)

2 ho

urs

8 ho

urs

24 h

ours

2 da

ys

3 da

ys

1 wee

k

2 wee

ks

58%

92% 92% 92% 92%100% 100%Accumulated Response Rate

Energy

Health-care

Industry

Infrastr.&Cities

100

100

100

77

51

49

72

38

EP-Index (max 100) by topic

Germany Average all Countries

3rd TR2009

4th TR2009

5th TR2010

6th TR2011

7th TR2012

8th TR2013

35

20

45

32 31

83 4 6 2 <1 1

Response Time in h

Germany Best Performer

3rd TR2009

4th TR2009

5th TR2010

6th TR2011

7th TR2012

8th TR2013

18

66

36 36

62

94

39

100

84

100

78

94

EP-Index

Germany Best Performer

50%50%

Response Rate by Reply Category

no reply

dummy reply

qualifying reply

full reply

3rd TR2009

4th TR2009

5th TR2010

6th TR2011

7th TR2012

8th TR2013

27%

82%

55% 50%

75%

100%

73%

100%94%

100%92%

100%

Response Rate

Germany Best Performer

8th TR inquiries in total n=12 Energy: n=3Healthcare: n=3Industry: n=3Infrastr.&Cities: n=3

country

countrycountrycountry

For internal use only Index Page 23 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

1-800 Siemens acts as a switchboard by dispatching calls & emails to correct locations & people within businesses

• Call Center attempts a “warm transfer”• Email center forwards emails

1-800 does not offer product related service

1-800 answers simple, standard, repetitive inquiries immediately

Maintains a knowledge base of most frequent standard inquiries andbest responses

In the US we have a Call Center for Phone service and a separate Email Center. Both rely on the same basic lists, databases and 2nd level support people.

E-Mail Response Management Best Pracice USA: Scope of “1-800 SIEMENS”

For internal use only Index Page 24 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

1-800 SIEMENSemail.us@siemens BU/Corp

Immediate Response

For Standard Inquiries

Business Related Inquiry?

=> Dispatch to Business Unit/Owner

Direct Response from

Business Unit/Owner

To Customer

Responses

for non-standard

Inquiries

Customer

2nd Level

Support

E-Mail Response Management Best Pracice USA: “1-800 SIEMENS” Inquiry Flow

For internal use only Index Page 25 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

Updated & confirmed list of contacts within Business Units able to respond on behalf of business.

Updated Location List (Only public locations that can help customers)

Updated Product Database (map product related requests with BU’s)

Call Center Agent Access to SCD (lookup of individual employees)

Knowledge base for standard inquiries & answers

Second Level support person (well connected to organization) taking on difficult / non-standard inquiries

Allow Feedback (e.g. Feedback link in email)

E-Mail Response Management Best Pracice USA: Success Factors

Updated Information & Second Level Support

For internal use only Index Page 26 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

E-Mail Response Management Best Pracice USA: Redesigned Contact Section

Re-Designed Contact Section generates Pre-Classified Inquiries

(by Service, Sales, Company Info, … )

For internal use only Index Page 27 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

Feedback Link at Bottom of Responses

Sample Response

Feedback Form

E-Mail Response Management Best Pracice USA: Feedback Form

For internal use only Index Page 28 Uwe Zinnow / CC MC CP

Thank you!

Contact:

Uwe Zinnow Corporate Communications

and Government Affairs Customers and Prospects (CC MC CP)

Werner-von-Siemens-Str. 5091052 Erlangen

Phone: +49 (9131) 7-21102 Mobile: +49 172-2830736Email: uwe.zinnow@siemens.com

More detailed information:

/brandville > Guidelines > Digital Media > > Email Response Management

• ERM Podcast

Stefan Heeke and Uwe Zinnow

• ERM Guidelines

• Best Practice USA

• Performance Test Results

• … and this presentation