OLS workflow sketch This slide deck represents major segments of the workflow for Online Submission (OLS). It shows managed 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.

Prototype Scenarios Going from a partner-deployed CRM system directly into Microsoft Support. Engaging in Premier support using chat and adding in a co-worker to assist in resolving the case. Click here to advance the presentation

Dependencies This 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 ONLY A DRAFT WIREFRAME FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. NOT FINAL ART 3

Fabrikam helpdesk Hank has been working on this Exchange migration issue for a week now. Premier customers frequently have requested that we support some way of bridging their internal trouble ticket systems to Microsoft’s trouble ticket system. Many of them have request frustration at having to track the issue in two places as well as frustration at having to re-type or paste everything they’ve already done into a Microsoft form.

Click slide advance arrow to Show Dependencies Fabrikam helpdesk KB Content wrapper? New Jewel project? Click slide advance arrow to Show Dependencies Hank has now reached the point where they have to “burn” one of their contracted incidents under their premier agreement. Within the CRM system, they’ve written a custom menu item on the “assign” menu.

Fabrikam helpdesk Which initiates a process of assigning this internal incident to Microsoft. Dear viewer, do not for a moment think that this is the only way to submit a premier incident in the future! The existing entry point will remain for MPO users that don’t have the development resources to engineer a hook from their CRM system into our API. This demonstration is to push the envelope of PQO engineering to support the incident interchange format. The desktop management task force has already defined an incident interchange format. Microsoft and several other large ISVs have signed on to supporting it. http://www.dmtf.org/standards/documents/CIM/DSP0132.pdf

Here Hank is brought to step one of the Premier Incident submission workflow. Since it’s a migration issue, Hank can even specify both products involved in the migration This allows us to do a simple schema mapping from CIM/DSP0132 to the OLS fields for product. If our systems can synch, we can default the product selection. If the mapping at this level fails, Hank tells us the product and support topic. :

MSSOLVE and CAP, then SBiS and CAP after Q2 And here the product selector is duplicated so the user can tell us which two support Microsoft products they’re migrating between. Since they’re migrating from MySQL to Exchange, they don’t see it in the list, but that’s fine since we only treat it as text data. We already have enough information to route the case successfully, and the next button has been enabled.

Requires record of who the TAM/ADC is. Odyssey? Requires record of who the partner is reselling to. Go for MBS, but unknown for MPO Requires record of who the TAM/ADC is. Odyssey? Business policy for chat, MSSOLVE/CAP for SMS support Here Hank can largely confirm preferences which are set by the fact that he logged in to his Windows Live ID. All of the settings here are “sticky” and will become defaults for this user’s next session. Hank is registered in the Certified Gold Partner’s program, and so their incident view within Premier allows them to specify which of their clients they’re submitting on behalf of. Also Hank has the option to notify their TAM/ADC regarding this case’s creation. Hank is in a bit of a jam and instead of waiting for a callback they want to chat right now. They leave alternate language set to “none” because they only want to conduct this case in English

MSSOLVE/CAP: When submitting through the external CRM API, override any queue-defined preferences for guided descriptions and post the text of the incident body from Hank’s CRM into this text field. Also allow for, and preserve, limited rich text formatting capabilities The title is defaulted from a concatenation of the internal trouble ticket number from Hank’s CRM along with the actual incident title from Hank’s CRM. This is a hack unless and until the back end CRM supports exposing read/write access to a field for external CRM ID number. Since this was initiated by the CRM API, we do away with the whole “guided description” versus “free form description” notion and plop all the CRM case text into a freeform field. Hank can format it (if we can lobby the CRM to round trip the rich text format without stripping it). Also , any attachments to the internal CRM system case are now automatically added to the case. The “confidentiality” bit is an MBS-dictated requirement and design for it is not yet complete. The notion is, within many MBS topics, sensitive payroll information may need to be exchanged. It is critical that any customer viewing the incident details be prevented from accessing certain attachments. Open question: the “confidentiality” bit comes from MBS. Why is it important to handle this in this way instead of at the incident level? We have a contacts list – for MPO it is sufficient to manage access to the incident as a whole. Even in the case of payroll data, why do co-workers need to see a case with this data attached to it? If MBS can accept a different manner of achieving this feature then I think it should be explored. Here’s a dated answer: From: Danel Jung Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 11:56 AM To: Court Crawford; Mike Hughes (FARGO) Cc: Arvind Vathul; Inga Smith Subject: RE: MBS / OLS - Review Court's Proposal   Hi Court – I verified that for our project to onboard VSA to MSSolve we will be removing the confidential attachment functionality in eSupport – only because with the new implementation those files (stored on SFT) will only be visible via a password which is sent to the user. If we ever add the functionality to view file attachments inline of the SR history without a password – we would need the ability to mark them as confidential. Thanks – please let me know if you have any questions.

Phone Queue/OneCall?/MSSOLVE/CAP: This control must now become dynamic, indicating which party has responsibility for the next action on the case Phone Queue/OneCall?/MSSOLVE/CAP: Displaying the average queue length alongside a counter indicating Hank’s current time in the queue Phone Queue/OneCall?/MSSOLVE/CAP: Allowing the user to pause the case or abandon it before SE communication PQO: send e-mail with full details from confirmation page along with a link to this collaboration space 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 Now Hank is officially delighted. He sees that the chat system and this online experience are tightly integrated and he is watching his time in queue tick up by the minute. He can choose to get a cup of tea in the five minutes he expects to be on hold. He considers using the “pause” button to ensure that his chat isn’t answered before he’s ready. Tooltips explain the effects of buttons so Hank feels more confident clicking them. The data collection is still optional, as Hank has a deep distrust of any machine-generated diagnostic tasks. Hank would trust it if a Microsoft support professional asked him to run it, but not if the computer asked him to run it. Hank grabs his tea with the mobile phone pasted to his ear and comes back to his computer to wait until the support professional picks up the case. This interface would only last as long as Hank’s call is on hold. While on hold, Hank can peruse support “upgrades” as well as pause or abandon the case. P01: enjoyed seeing position in the queue P04: noted diagnostic and indicated that he can't run them in production environment during the day P09: Indicated jump to top of queue and said that he expected that people would jump to top of queue and make his hold time take longer. If time to wait was exceeded he'd wonder if it had been due to others jumping over him in the queue. P12: Indicated email - "it's good to have a receipt" indicated hyperlink and said that he would use it if we were disconnected P17: Indicated difference between time in queue and average time. Said that he hoped that it would be only 5 minutes until his case was picked up.

MSSOLVE\CAP: Chat inline within the incident collaboration space Support professional can push actions to Hank. Data Collection just one example. File upload, accept a remote desktop connection, manually perform diagnostic or troubleshooting are other potential tasks. MSSOLVE/CAP: Customer can close the case or give feedback to the support professional’s manager at any time. MSSOLVE\CAP: Chat inline within the incident collaboration space MSSOLVE/CAP: Put the action back on Microsoft at any time with an optional explanatory note field. MSSOLVE/CAP: Rich information about the support professional to break down the anonymity associated with web interactions MSSOLVE/CAP: Support professional can push content here. MUST not be content Hank has already told us they’ve seen Click anywhere in the collaboration space to advance to the next UI. Hank now sees that the case is no longer on hold. Support upgrades are no longer offered, and Hank sees relevant and rich information about Ashvini, the support engineer handling the case. Hank appreciates that none of the content is stuff he’s already told us he’s seen even though his a little annoyed that he wasn’t able to find it himself. Using this interface as a supplement to the phone call, Hank and Ashvini can interact over the phone, over chat, or over e-mail to resolve the case. P01: great to see details on the MSFT se; it's helps encourage that sense of team P01: expects that Microsoft feedback would go to a "coordinator" P06: Asked him about the feedback button - guessed that it would relate to the quality of the support P07: Noted the image of the UE in the contacts area "Oh cool, you can see who you are talking to" P09: Noted SE contact and indicated that it's good to know who I'm chatting with. It makes it more personal. "Instead of somebody somewhere, now I know who and where." P11: Scanning contacts column. Likes specialties, location was personally interesting to him as a world traveler (said would be googling the location while he waited for Ashvini), "doesn’t matter where he is as long as I can understand [him] which is why I prefer chat support" P15: Reading initial message from SE: The implication of this recommended content thing… is this appearing because the person didn’t check the links earlier… If I'm willing to pay for it, don’t tell me to read the manual." Note that participant demonstrated a high-order understanding of the link between checked history link and recommended content WRT acknowledging that if he had checked history links during entitlement, none of those links should appear in recommended content.

Hank now sees that Ashvini has changed data collection from an optional activity into a required activity, which is reinforced by the ball that is now in Hank’s court. Since the data collection package will take about 2 hours to complete, Ashvini offers to allow Hank to click the “contact me” button when the diagnostic is complete to resume troubleshooting the case. Furthermore, Hank doesn’t have rights to run the diagnostic package, so Ashvini instructs Hank to click on the “Add co-worker” button in the right column; Other possible required actions might be installing a new dll or implementing a registry hack – any manner of task that might resolve Hank’s problem. P04: Noting the ball; "something's waiting on me" P05: Asked him what is the next action; he indicated the Ball and stated "It's iconic, simple, and easy."

MSSOLVE/CAP: This process allows Hank to create an additional contact on the case. Additional contact authorized by means of Active Directory Federation Service. Open technical question – how to trust ADFS for access to MPO site? Alternate auth schemes also supported – see appendix of this presentation Brian Bridwell Since Hank works with a trusted corporation with a Premier agreement, Hank’s IT department has exposed their Active Directory to Microsoft using Active Directory Federation Service. This will allow us to use NT Challenge/Response authentication to add or remove coworkers from the case.

Hank gives the co-worker the “additional” contact role. In addition to supporting ADFS authentication, users can either have the “primary” contact role or an “additional” contact roll. The roles have identical access to the incident, but only the “primary” role can add or remove contacts to the case, and only the “primary” role can delegate the primary role to somebody else.

We produce a link pointing to the incident which Hank can copy and send in an e-mail to the contact he just added.

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 MSSOLVE/CAP: Rich profile data associated with and managed by customer, bound to ADFS User ID or to PUID and this case if signed in Co-worker runs diagnostics. All three collaborate and resolve issue. Click anywhere in the collaboration space to advance to the next UI. The added co-worker gets an e-mail message from Hank’s address which includes a link to this collaboration space. The coworker can log in using their Active Directory login. And now the co-worker can edit their own availability and credentials, but Hank can not. Hank can delegate the primary contact role to “get out of the way”, or remove the co-worker, but in this scenario Hank will stay the primary contact on the case. Regardless, the co-worker can join in the chat session, run the diagnostic, and then click the “contact me” button to bring the support engineer back to the case. Here we can use Office Communication Server for presence indicators, since LiiveID is not required to reach this page. This can also be used to represent multiple support professionals on the case. P01: delegate primary role a great feature, immediately comprehensible P06: Noticed delegate primary button - indicated that it was a cool feature - indicated that the primary role might be the owner of the case in his org, or might be the person with primary expertise

When the case is resolved, all actions are now optional, but Hank can save a local copy of the case for his records. P11: In response to Russ asking how he'd interact with the local copy, Mark said the offline copy would be an excellent resource. I don't know if I could send this over to the county or not, letting them know, if you have this issue, you can do this to solve it. P15: Local Copy: If it included the case log that would be fine. A copy of all the dialog between Ashvini and me. P17:Save local copy: "I love having a log or documentation" When the case is closed, Hank still retains the ability to save a local copy, as well as give feedback, or even add a co-worker to the online space to view the incident details. A quick check of my personal account shows that Microsoft is retaining online records of an incident I filed in 2002, 6 years ago.

Hank appreciates that he can store the file in simple text or in more interactive formats too. He might paste this into his trouble ticket system using the text copy, but he might use the MHT archive for his personal use, and the docx format to send to his co-worker who doesn’t use Internet Explorer.

Click anywhere in collaboration space to conclude. Scenario ends here. Feedback on the support experience can be given to the case owner’s manager at any time, and is explicitly added in on case closure.

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

This would be the local (offline) copy of the case This would be the local (offline) copy of the case. Click to return to the collaboration space. And when the offline copy is opened Hank sees it includes the full case log and all recommended content.

OLS workflow Any questions or comments, please send them to courtnec. Click the glowing rectangle to restart this prototype. Appendix Premier online View Incidents page Alternate permissions structure to using ADFS

Click to show another MPO permissions alternative

Click to show another MPO permissions alternative

Click to show another MPO permissions alternative

Click to show another MPO permissions alternative

Click to show another MPO permissions alternative

Click to show another MPO permissions alternative

Click to show another MPO permissions alternative

Click to show another MPO permissions alternative

Click to restart the entire presentation