Retail stores
Find the applicable rule
while the customer waits.
Use approved store knowledge for recurring work questions. In the deployment described, Haidi at BIPA uses text input. Voice access is a planned extension, with scope assessed for each project.
Fictional example
A colleague needs the applicable instruction.
A customer is waiting with a complaint. The colleague finds several documents but cannot yet identify the applicable version. She needs an answer supported by sources and the responsible person for a possible exception.
MARA · STORE
A work question. A customer waiting.
Current rule · relevant scope · responsible person
During a customer conversation
“Which instruction applies to this complaint, and who handles an exception?”
The decision
What do we know for sure?
What remains unresolved.
The colleague needs to see whether approved knowledge supports her case. A supported answer, a focused follow-up question and human assessment are useful outcomes.
01
A supported answer
An approved instruction covers the question. The answer identifies its source and traceable document version. The colleague can relate that information to the current customer conversation.
02
A focused follow-up question
A required detail is missing, such as the product concerned. The gap is identified and clarified before a general rule is applied to the specific case.
03
The responsible person
An exception or conflict remains unresolved in the sources. The named responsible person assesses the individual case and decides what happens next, using the available information.
The first use case
One question.
Three reliable outcomes.
Fictional example
“Where can I find the applicable complaints instruction, and does it cover this exception?”
Source
An approved store instruction for complaints with a traceable version.
Boundary
The responsible person decides on exceptions. Missing details and pending approvals stay visible.
Next step
Pilot objective: One team uses approved knowledge for recurring work questions. Input method, access and handovers are agreed; voice access is assessed as an extension.
Example response
“The approved complaints instruction is available in the agreed version. The product concerned still needs to be specified. Approval for an exception remains unresolved in the sources; the responsible person needs to be involved.”
A required detail is missing, such as the product concerned. The gap is identified and clarified before a general rule is applied to the specific case.
Which information is missing, and who can confirm it?
An exception or conflict remains unresolved in the sources. The named responsible person assesses the individual case and decides what happens next, using the available information.
The responsible person decides on exceptions. Missing details and pending approvals stay visible.
Value and costs
Value in the process.
Make the effort visible.
01
Search and handling time
For comparable work questions, we measure the effort required to reach a usable answer. The baseline, counting unit and measurement period are agreed beforehand to assess changes in everyday work.
02
Inquiries confirmed resolved
The subject-matter owner reviews whether an answer is supported by sources, appropriate and sufficient within the agreed scope. This assessment determines which inquiries count as resolved.
03
Correct follow-up questions and handovers
We assess whether missing details are clarified appropriately and exceptions reach the responsible team. Necessary follow-up questions are recognised as a useful contribution to professional resolution.
What determines the effort
Source preparation, access, integration, operation and knowledge upkeep determine the effort. Scope and the proposal are established during scoping; extensions are agreed separately.
Pace and reliability
Measure the pace.
Assess reliability.
01
Speed in everyday work
We measure response time and time to professional resolution separately. The pilot shows the effort required between the initial question and a usable answer in everyday work.
02
A reliable source version
Answers rely on the agreed, approved document version. Responsibilities for changes and source upkeep are established. Unresolved or conflicting rules remain visible to the responsible person.
03
An assessable pilot
The task, input method, period and quality criteria are agreed beforehand. Comparable work questions and baselines support assessment; attribution and the reliability of results are reviewed together.
The first pilot
One team. One task.
A pilot you can assess.
Pilot objective
- 01
ScopeOne store team and recurring work questions about a defined area of approved internal instructions.
- 02
SourcesApproved store instructions and relevant internal documents. Versions, access and responsibility for changes are agreed.
- 03
OwnershipA named subject-matter owner reviews answers and sources. Responsibilities for exceptions, IT and knowledge upkeep are established.
- 04
Success criteriaPilot objectives: Supported answers, traceable document versions, suitable follow-up questions and correct handovers. Metrics and baselines are set before the start.
- 05
Decision afterwardsAfter measurement, we decide whether to continue, make improvements or stop. More stores, sources or voice access are assessed separately afterwards.
Expansion
One foundation.
Expand with purpose.
Further TalkTo solutions use the same Voice Operating Layer. The next step follows from the reviewed need.
Possible next step
TalkToProduct
Make product information from approved sources accessible for suitable advice questions. Information, access and handovers are defined together for the extension, using the same Voice Operating Layer.
Possible next step
TalkToTrain
Rehearse difficult conversations in agreed scenarios. TalkToTrain is a pilot concept requiring a training partner. Scenarios, expert feedback and use are established beforehand, on the same Voice Operating Layer.
Buyer FAQ
Questions before
your first pilot.
How do colleagues use Haidi at BIPA?
In the deployment described, colleagues type their questions. Haidi uses text input; voice access is described as a planned extension.
Which questions suit a first pilot?
Recurring work questions about approved internal instructions for a limited task. Scoping assesses sources, document versions, access and exceptions so that answers and handovers can be reviewed by the responsible people.
Who decides on exceptions or conflicting rules?
The named responsible person or team. The answer shows the approved version and unresolved points; a necessary exception approval is handed over to them.
What do head office, the store and IT contribute?
They provide approved documents, traceable versions, access rights and subject-matter ownership. Integration, source upkeep and handovers are defined together for the project scope.
How do we measure value?
We compare supported resolutions, search and handling effort, and correct follow-up questions and handovers with agreed baselines. The period and quality criteria are established before the start.
