Everyone knows, or at least talks about, the importance of monitoring contact centers for quality purposes. But simply monitoring the calls is not enough. The question is, how does a company make the monitoring effort effective, i.e. how do they ensure it is being done right so it can be turned into actionable results? There are a number of factors that go into creating a viable program. However, there are six overriding principles that are at the top of the list.
Frequency
In the pursuit of better customer service, call center managers naturally want to evaluate the performance of agents. But how often should they be evaluated? While most managers agree on the importance of call monitoring, according to Dr. John Anton, Researcher and Author at Purdue University’s Center for Customer-Driven Quality, the average center evaluates just five calls per every 1,000 per month for each agent.
Monitoring five calls per agent per month may be average for the industry, but how effective is that rate? The key is to perform a sufficient number of evaluations to create a statistically valid sample size for evaluating center- or company-wide trends. Using the 1,000 calls per agent per month assumption, a center would have to monitor 350 calls per agent every month to reach a 95% confidence level. However, increasing the frequency of call monitoring even by a few calls per agent per month can have a dramatic impact on quality and profitability.
Time
In most call centers, quality monitoring and coaching is considered to be a necessary evil, something that is mandated by business needs and takes place, if at all, when time allows. In most centers there is simply not enough staff to get the job done with any regularity, let alone multiply the number of evaluations by 500% or more to arrive at a statistically valid sample size.
The problem is that many companies enlist their supervisors to perform the monitoring function. While there are many reasons this will not yield optimal results, the most pressing is obvious: it takes supervisors away from coaching agents and trying to help them improve their performance, the function for which they were hired.
What’s more, because of their jam-packed schedules, these same supervisors often run out of time and find themselves rushed to complete evaluations during the last few days of the month, dashing off quick emails or recommendations to only those agents needing the most improvement – certainly not the most accurate way to judge or improve quality. This is not uncommon. According to the ICMI Monitoring Study III conducted last year; 41.7% of respondents indicated that those conducting the monitoring did not have enough time to provide effective monitoring and feedback.
And on any given day, if call volumes increase unexpectedly as they often do, supervisors must again answer the phones, again taking them away from the monitoring function that they didn’t really have time to do in the first place.
Due to this grim business reality, the use of a third-party company to perform the monitoring function is quite often the best solution. Not only do these firms have the time and expertise needed for the job, they have the resources to complete a statistically relevant number of evaluations.
Joe Caliro is the Executive Vice President of Quality at HyperQuality. He manages Professional Services, their full-service customer quality consulting arm specializing in improving the quality of customer service, employee retention and engagement, and sales and operational performance. In his previous job as director of quality and service excellence at AOL, Caliro directed a global quality team in the U.S., India and the Philippines that was responsible for improving the operational performance of more than 22 call centers and 16,000 employees in eight countries, along with headquarter operations for all of AOL’s Member Services.
Reach Joe at joe.caliro@hyperquality.com.
© 2007 Telecom Reseller. All Rights Reserved.