Zum Inhalt springen
Case studies

AI customer support when both scale and quality matter.

The strongest support systems do not automate blindly. They cover routine safely, escalate clearly, and return team time to complex cases.

Signal
2.3M

automated conversations in the Klarna example

Signal
94%

autonomy rate in IBM AskHR

Signal
$40M

reported savings through scaled support automation

Signal
24/7

coverage for repetitive requests and status questions

Case study 01

Klarna: absorb high contact volume without scaling headcount linearly.

The issue was not only volume. It was the fact that simple requests consumed too much expensive human handling time.

Problem

Starting point

Large request volume with many repetitive support cases.
Teams were tied up on simple tickets instead of exceptions.
Cost and handling time scaled too directly with volume.
Implementation

What changed

An AI support layer for repetitive, standardizable requests.
Clear escalation with context handoff to human agents.
Continuous optimization from conversation and intent data.
Result

Impact

2.3M

automated conversations

$40M

estimated savings effect

Instant

responses for routine cases

Case study 02

IBM AskHR: answer internal HR and support requests with high autonomy.

Instead of pushing employees through ticket chains and manual back-and-forth, IBM created a structured AI access layer for knowledge and processes.

Problem

Starting point

Large volume of repeat internal questions about policies and status updates.
High manual effort from standard ticket handling.
Inconsistent answer quality across teams and contexts.
Implementation

What changed

AI access to policies, workflows, and defined service paths.
Automatic handling of common questions with escalation only when needed.
Measurement of autonomy, handoff rate, and service quality.
Result

Impact

94%

autonomy rate

Less

manual standard-ticket work

More

human focus on complex cases

Delivery model

How we build support systems at RakenAI.

We combine knowledge grounding, channel access, escalation logic, and analytics so support becomes more reliable, not just cheaper.

Intent layer

Requests are classified into clean service paths instead of one generic chat flow.

Knowledge grounding

Answers come from controlled sources rather than free-form model guesses.

Escalation logic

Complex cases move to humans with conversation context intact.

Measurement

Autonomy, repetition, handoff quality, and failure modes stay visible.

Questions

What teams usually ask next.

When does support automation create the most value?

When many repeat cases have clear answers and the team is drowning in volume rather than in uniquely complex edge cases.

What happens to unclear or sensitive cases?

They do not get trapped in the bot. We define escalation rules, context handoff, and hard boundaries for automated responses.

Does this always require an audit first?

No. If the core problem is support volume and coverage, we can go directly into support design. If demand or trust is already breaking upstream, audit is often smarter first.

Next step

Automate support without degrading quality or handoff clarity.

We show which request types can be covered safely and how escalation, knowledge, and channels should fit together.