OptFor.AI Consulting / Transformation / Development

Case Study · Healthcare & Contact Center

AI in LUX MED Group’s Contact Center: Contextual Analysis of Sales Calls

Contact center consultant reviewing a sales call with AI support

Project outcomes

Approx. 86%

AI assessment effectiveness

In one of the hardest areas: handling customer objections.

Up to 100%

of calls can be analyzed

Instead of manually reviewing a limited sample.

Next phase

launched after the pilot

The project continues after the technology proved its potential.

01 · Client

LUX MED Group

Client
LUX MED Group
Industry
Healthcare
Area
Sales and Contact Center
Technology
Speech transcription, LLMs, contextual analysis
Delivery
Pilot and continued solution development

02 · Challenge

How can call assessment become more scalable and objective?

The quality of consultant conversations directly affects customer experience, sales performance, and compliance with internal standards. Calls had been reviewed manually against a scorecard, which meant that only a small fraction of all interactions could be assessed.

LUX MED Group wanted to find out whether AI could automate not only simple checks, such as whether the consultant introduced themselves, but also nuanced aspects of a conversation. The hardest challenge was objection handling: recognizing explicit and implicit concerns, investigating their cause, and assessing whether the consultant’s response was relevant and effective.

03 · Solution

Context-aware automated call analysis

Together with the LUX MED Group team, we developed a prototype for analyzing sales calls. Anonymized recordings were transcribed and then assessed by AI models against criteria designed with LUX MED experts.

The system detected red flags and required procedural elements, including a correct introduction, the call-recording notice, and proper use of the company name. At the same time, it evaluated the full context: identifying explicit and hidden objections, assessing how their causes were explored, and determining whether the argument matched the customer’s situation.

Beyond a score, the AI generated actionable feedback highlighting strengths, effective arguments, and specific opportunities for improvement. The analysis can therefore support both quality assurance and day-to-day consultant coaching.

04 · Data security

Anonymization before analysis

Information security was a core condition of the pilot. Every sampled call was manually anonymized before being shared for analysis, and the anonymization process was independently verified.

Only material stripped of information that could identify customers, consultants, or other individuals was transcribed and analyzed. This made it possible to validate the technology on real conversations while reducing personal-data processing risk.

05 · Pilot validation

AI versus manual call assessment

  • Comparison of AI results with the original quality controller scorecard.
  • Independent re-review of discrepancies by an additional team.
  • Expert interpretation of the most ambiguous cases.
  • Refinement of criteria using atypical conversations.

The first comparison showed approximately 30% agreement between AI and the original controller assessment. A second review, however, found that the AI result was more accurate in most of the examined discrepancies. The pilot exposed how subjective interpretation, fatigue, and differences between reviewers can affect manual quality control.

The team also identified calls the system did not yet assess correctly, including conversations in which a customer bought several products with different sales paths. These cases were used to refine the criteria and continue improving the analysis mechanism.

06 · Benefits

Broader quality coverage and actionable sales insights

  • Assessment of significantly more calls without proportionally expanding the quality team.
  • Consistent criteria regardless of time of day or individual reviewer preferences.
  • Faster, specific feedback for consultants while the conversation is still fresh.
  • More trainer and reviewer time for coaching and complex cases.
  • Personalized training based on individual and team strengths and development areas.
  • Analysis of sales arguments and behaviors that lead to next steps or conversion.
  • Data for continuous process improvement and measuring training effectiveness.

07 · Interpreting the result

What does approximately 86% effectiveness mean?

The result concerns one selected and particularly demanding part of a sales conversation: evaluating objection handling. It does not mean an 86% sales increase or that the entire Contact Center operates at 86% effectiveness.

The figure was calculated on the pilot sample by comparing the original controller assessment, the AI analysis, a second review by an additional team, and expert interpretation of discrepancies. The study showed that a well-designed AI system can reliably analyze ambiguous sales behaviors and provide more consistent feedback.

OptFor.AI

AI for sales and customer service conversation analysis

OptFor.AI designs solutions for automated phone-call analysis, service quality assessment, and identification of behaviors that influence sales performance. The system can assess procedural compliance, needs discovery, objection handling, sales arguments, and progress toward conversion.

We tailor each solution to the organization’s processes, assessment criteria, and security requirements — from a pilot on a representative sample to a scalable system covering the full call volume.

Case study · Last updated:

OptFor.AI

Want to see what AI can uncover in your team’s conversations?

Analyze a sample of calls and discover the service quality, argument effectiveness, and training insights AI can provide.

Discuss call analysis