Loading
This is cost avoided, not cash saved. It becomes cash only if headcount changes or the freed time goes somewhere that earns.
Treat this as an upper bound. It assumes every deflected contact would otherwise have taken a full agent handling time, and that the assistant never causes a second contact — both optimistic. The honest use is to see whether the order of magnitude justifies the work, not to put a number in a business case.
Estimates agent cost avoided by deflection, deliberately as an upper bound.
Every figure it produces is arithmetic on what you enter, and the working is shown line by line rather than summarised into a single number.
Replace the defaults with your own figures. They are examples chosen to make the shape obvious, not benchmarks — using them unchanged tells you about a company that is not yours.
The lines beneath the headline are the useful part: they show which input is driving the result, which is what makes the answer arguable in a good way.
Treat this as an upper bound. It assumes every deflected contact would otherwise have taken a full agent handling time, and that the assistant never causes a second contact — both optimistic. The honest use is to see whether the order of magnitude justifies the work, not to put a number in a business case.
Where two readings of the same question exist, both are shown rather than one being chosen for you. That is deliberate — the difference between them is usually the thing worth discussing.
If a figure looks wrong, change the input you least believe and watch what moves. That is faster than checking the arithmetic.
No. The tool runs in the page, nothing is sent anywhere, and there is no follow-up.
No. They are examples chosen to make the shape clear. Use your own figures.
It is stated in the working shown beneath the result, so you can check it rather than trust it.
Half an hour on your own figures, and an honest answer about the parts Treepie does not improve.