Zendesk

Commentaires: Zendesk is an easy-to-use, dynamic, intuitive customer service tool that allows the use of macros to optimize messages to customers.
Zendesk is easy to implement and with adaptable prices. I have recommended this tool to several friends for their organizations

Avantages: Zendesk is an excellent tool for the management of requirements or requests. It facilitates the management within my Support Center.
It allows to automate response to our customers. Also, customize the tool according to the type of company.
From this tool I manage to serve the internal and external clients of my organization. As well as, send satisfaction surveys once the support is finished.
Their specific user roles allowed me to implement the tool in the organization in a short time, even without investing much time in training because it has very good material for users on the web.
What I like most about Zendesk is to be able to automate the responses to clients and macros.
Zendesk has elements for case management, live chat, design a knowledge base, have a panel to the client. Since we included this tool in the company we have improved our response levels in the support tickets and with this to customer service.
I like the flexibility of purchase packages or use of the tool, through payment by users or agents. Also, although we have not configured it for now, it is interesting to integrate with VoIP to take the call from customers or interested parties.

Inconvénients: Zendesk for being a tool for customer service would be interesting to link or customize good practice agreements at the service level and operational.
We as a client can add response times, and define with a category that is requirements or request and that are incidents.
Next, what features Zendesk would need:
* Add response time according to the type of requirements or request.
* Define type of requests and incidents
* Get graphs by type of incidents
* Get graphs with crossings between service agreements and operational agreements. This would allow us to measure the effectiveness of the support center based on agreements with customers
* Have notifications every time you are consuming the time of a ticket, considering the times of agreements at the service or operational level
* Have a video call

Commentaires: Our company has been using Zendesk for 5-7 years. I was not personally around when we onboarded it, but I have worked with it for over 3 years now. We have terrible trouble any time we did need support, for a system problem or a question we couldn't answer ourselves via their expansive maze of KnowledgeBase. The support reps at Zendesk have been accusatory, excuse-ridden, and most of all don't even read the tickets you submit to understand the problem (Zendesk support actually became an office joke. That's about the time we decided we had to look for another tool). When we met with our Account Rep to try to get some of the issues worked out, we were told basically that we weren't even supposed to have gotten the level of support we had received, and proceeded to explain how SaaS works (we're a software company, mind you). I think Zendesk simply got too big too fast, and somewhere along the way decided that the businesses using their product aren't important anymore. They lost this long-term customer.

Avantages: Zendesk as a tool does what it is supposed to do, and it does it well. We used Support + Guide products, for ticketing for our e-learning business, and also for our Self-Serve support (knowledgebase). It is full-featured, and comprehensive. As far as support rep work goes, it's simple, to the point, and it integrates well with many tool because it is such a large company. It is designed for an enterprise company.

Inconvénients: Because it is so full-featured, it can be years' work to get everything set like you need, and they provide little to no assistance. Some of the basic settings are so deep and so spread out, you'll spend hours reading through Help articles to understand how to customize your ticket form. It is NOT small-business friendly, it is really meant for large companies with someone dedicated to maintaining this software.

Commentaires: Overall, Zendesk allowed us to create a new ticketing platform and process for the business. Its integration with Slack drove great user adoption and encouraged submissions. This platform allowed us to report on the most common IT and biz ops issues at our org while allowing "agents" to service and help the team effectively. It's pretty ideal that you can manage your workload, triage requests, and reply to folks all in a few clicks. It's really all-in-one if you integrate with your CRM too.

Avantages: Top features for me in this tool were the GoodData reporting flexibility, ticket automation, and clean user experience. We didn't leverage the knowledge base, although being able to click to directly create an article after a ticket submission seemed like a slick feature. The ability to add lots of custom fields of varying types, create automation based on those fields, and rout tickets to end users was key. There's great flexibility in what you can achieve between the user permissions, user groups, and the form/landing page as part of the tool.

Inconvénients: Some of the out of the box reporting seemed a little bit wonky in comparison with what I would pull in the GoodData insights area. Honestly, very few cons about Zendesk, although the price is a bit steep for a ticketing platform. This being said, though, it's very powerful and you get what you pay for with software.

Commentaires: We used Zendesk at 3 of my last 4 jobs. The last 2 at my suggestion. We handle a diverse amount of different customer issues and its a great system to manage and track all the different interactions our customers are having as well as the agents that are handling them.

Avantages: The ticketing platform was much easier to use than our antiquated ticketing service we used. I like the different options and features that Zendesk has vs some of the other companies out there.

Inconvénients: The interface is a little tricky if you have not used it before. So unless you have a diverse knowledge of ticketing software the hill can be a little hard to climb at first, but once you do its smooth sailing from there.

Avantages: I struggle to find good things to say. It works and rarely has performance problems. If you need very basic support ticketing and are just starting out, you could use it and be successful. We did. But the functionality and support for those organizations between startup and large corporation is nil. If we were a very large organization, I could see it being a valuable product.

Inconvénients: 1. It is incredibly difficult to keep track of business users. When you are a SaaS supporting clients who have end-users, organizing tickets and documenting issues is very important to find patterns. This is not possible in Zendesk, at least at the Team feature level. There is not a central location for information for an organization outside of a Notes box that is basically a tiny sidebar textbox that allows no formatting to make notes over time readable. 2. There is no way to reference individual comments in a ticket because individual comments do not have their own IDs. This makes it very cumbersome to keep succinct notes and refers back to my first point. The only way we can review a client's history is through wading through a bunch of tickets with an endless stream of comments. I can't get a good timeline overview of their experience and issues, which is so essential to good issue triage. 3. Lack of features for those at the less pricey levels is pretty bad. There's no way to make our contact forms more customizable (like having a message to the person on the ticket - there is only limited description area and those are question/field based) and we don't have access to conditional logic on the forms. So we are left with clients just throwing issues at us without getting good information from them to get a one-touch resolution. The way Zendesk works it forces us to give lower-quality support. 4. There's no exporting your ticket information or running any sort of report if you are using the Team or lower feature level. These, to me, should be basic features as they pertain to the most basic of needs for any support team. Not only that, it ties you to the product and punishes you for leaving. We can't move to another product because we can't take our ticket history with us. 5. The features and performance is inconsistent. For example, there are "Triggers" and "Automations". Triggers and automations are the same. The only difference is the automations are time-based. But they don't tell you that in the interface - there's nothing telling you what is required to set up the automation in order for it to pass validation, only an error message. And by following the instructions of the error message, you can still get more errors. But there's nothing there to tell you the overall requirements so you can avoid errors in the first place. And in the Triggers interface, they leave out a large amount of placeholder options for seemingly no reason, so you have to go find the placeholder references for yourself. In my opinion, Zendesk doesn't have the user in mind. They put out new features and integrations, but the core product is so severely lacking that it seems like they feel they are operating on auto-pilot and their product needs no update itself. It's a shame, because it was probably was a good product with a lot of potential back when it first started up.