What are the benefits of capturing historical ACD data on a 15 minute basis as opposed to 30 minutes?

Not alot apart from doubling the amount if data you have!

DaveA

I guess it depends on the call profile, but I thought at the least there would be more efficient placement of shifts and breaks?

In regard to breaks no not really.

Even the most up to date WFM packages use (modified) Erlang calcs.

The accuracy breaks down below 1/2 hr's (Personal opinion)

The rule of thumb anyway is 60-70% of calls in any 1/2 hr
will come in between 00 and 15 or 30 and 45 mins. This is Human
nature in action people will wait until just after the hour or just
after the 1/2 hr to call. Try it next time you're going to call someone!

HTH

DaveA

Dave

Is this a benchmark figure that you are quoting..? Or is it true to your particular Call Centre Industry..?

Ben, from my experience and those in my team we think it can be vital in many Call Centres to be able to use ACD Data at 15 min intervals for call profiling. It's one of those situations where as soon as you move to 30mins you identify the need in your Call Centre for 15min analysis, especially true for 'peaks and troughs' staffing analysis.

I would interested to hear more views on this topic and the debates for and against 15min interval reporting.

Regards,

Jayne,

I'll answer the question first so the bit below doesn't look like a personal attack (it's not please believe me ....)

Personal observation really and Human nature. I've seen it across the board
not just in Healthcare

If you look you'll find youself doing it without realising it.

I'll take the podium for the debate position AGAINST 15 min Scheduling:

It is the opinion of this resource analyst that.........



With staff scheduling **Personally** I don't see a point in scheduling down to the 1/4 hr. I think it over complicates, puts too much stress on the agents and increases the task loading for TM's and Schedulers.

It doesn't take alot of common sense the book people onto breaks between 15 and 30 then 45 and 00.

The one obvious exception to the rule would be DRTV Campaigns

**SOAPBOX ALERT**

If you have a good understanding of your call flow and are utilising the data correctly going into too much detail is again IMHO math for maths sake.

Again if I were told that I was needed in 15 mins before my original start time or worse."We need you in 45 Mins earlier tomorrow" or the opposite. "We need you to start half an hour later tomorrow." I'd start looking for another job.

If I'm given a shift pattern for a week the company expects me to be available for those shifts. In return I expect the company to stick to what they've asked me to do.

There are so many posts about staff efficiency/productivity and resourcing here
I sometimes wonder if the agents are still seeen as bums on seats. We all seem to be taking part in threads like Changing the perception of our industry and Any tips for staff motivation but when it comes down to it theres still the questions on productivity measures et al.

Are we really trying to change or mearly giving lip service to the idea?

This I suppose should be cross posted to the motivation thread as well.

15 Minute scheduling / forecasting is symptomatic of Micro Management in an environment that alrady has a reputation for being a sweatshop. I'm waiting for the uproar here. Saying it ain't so is not going to change the public opinion or press reporting. Changes we make will take YEARS to filter through to public acceptance in the mean time which will the press report?

i) The Call Center that gave it's staff 1/2 a day off because they hit a sales target

OR

ii) The Call Center that made staff ask before going to the toilet?

Which is going to sell papers or make people tune back to the news after the adverts?


**F/X Gets off Soapbox**

DaveA

Hi,

It was a trick played by the key board - but I liked the title - seemed to be hitting upon the truth.

I am only submitting what crossed my observation.

The decision actually depends on the team leader or manager handling the work and the desired results.

Let us remember that the really good managers stay there because of what they are and can do. Classifying effective results into statistical jargon breaks the spirit and the desired results - while filling in the blanks demanded by the process.

So the first step would be to decide that there are no rules, arrive at your best fit, and then study the experiences of the others. The quality of replies on the threads can will vary with the questions. The better the queries the better the replies.

Just in case a contextual link is to be defined better, capture data on a half an hour basis and pick the fifteen minutes that you think matters,...

Learning is fun, so have a great time

I've been doing some analysis on the subject since the original post, and it's seems [in our case] there would be an approximate 10% increase to staff cost by moving to a 30 minute feed. This analysis includes assumptions such as shift start times would be on a 30 minute increment as would breaks.
The historical call data I have been analysing does indeed vary on a 15 minute level and if resource is scheduled across the half-hour as opposed to the quarter-hour, Service Level gets adversely affected.
Dave based on your your human nature argument 30-40% are already breaking the rule, why is this? I think you have to look a little deeper at the call drivers to find why the demand is generated and how a call links to the demand. In a healthcare environment it may be the case that human nature dictates the call, as demand may not be dynamically linked to an event, but instead passively linked. However it is important to remember demand can be dynamically linked to an event, examples: if someone is watching TV and there signal drops - they are going to call in straight away regardless of the time to shout at an agent, if Mr Postie delivers a bill, which happens to contain an unforeseen £100 charge - they are going to call in straight away regardless of the time to shout at an agent. These calls are dynamically linked to an effect and the time the call hits the agent is dictated by the time the event occurred. I believe recently these was addressed as causality - every action has a reaction...:)
With correct management I don't feel getting scheduled on a 15 minute basis adversely effects agent moral, having worked in both environments agents always find things to gripe about, but this hasn't been one of them.

[quote]
Again if I were told that I was needed in 15 mins before my original start time or worse."We need you in 45 Mins earlier tomorrow" or the opposite. "We need you to start half an hour later tomorrow." I'd start looking for another job.

If I'm given a shift pattern for a week the company expects me to be available for those shifts. In return I expect the company to stick to what they've asked me to do.
[quote/]

Why would this only occur in a 15 minute environment, exactly the same can occur in a half hour environment?

At the moment I must say I have to be leaning on the side of 15 Minute data capture.

Let’s start with the pure mathematical aspect of the question. The sampling rate should be at least double the data frequency which you want to measure. In other words, if you want to know how the traffic changes in 30 minutes resolution, you need to sample the ACD data in 15 minutes intervals. We don’t need to prove this mathematically (this is called Nyquist Theorem) – suffice to say that if an event, such as a sudden peak in call volume happens from time to time and lasts less than 30 minutes, sampling every 30 minutes may occur in sync with this event such that we miss it every time.

Therefore, the sampling frequency depends on the information we are looking for. If this analysis is used to schedule shift time and staffing, assuming that scheduling is done in full hour increments, sampling every 30 minutes is probably good enough.

As in many other cases, the math must also make business and real-world and business sense. I would probably invest in a one time effort and perform a very detailed analysis of the ACD data to get an idea how it behaves: is it stable or very dynamic? Is the reason for a very “noisy” data understood? What is the frequency (and cause) for changes? What is the impact of these changes on the business, staffing etc.? With this understanding (and the sampling frequency theory) you can find the correct number for your call center.

I hope this helps.

Joe

Have to say I'm with Dave and Mahidar on this one as regards staff shifts as for data reporting then I cant offer significant input however (deep breath) as regards scheduling here goes..............

Ben;
It does have the flavour of micro management - the call is all - if we analyse the reason for your original posting " What are the benefits?". It now seems you have analysed all the historical data, proven that staff costs will increase and seems to be moving towards a 30 minute timeframe. Why ask the question? It appears that you aren't significantly interested in the benefits or valuing the scheduling answers provided having proven the financial case.

If we want to analyse agent morale, theory and practice then The Hawthorn Experiment means of course productivity will increase however it also observes that paying attention to employees (feelings, beliefs, opinions) positively affects morale.

Dave outlines agent perception and motivation, it is exactly these kind of signals that agents pick up on. "They ask us for feedback then they implement regardless - they aren't really interested in our opinions, its all number crunching"

Ben said "With correct management I don't feel getting scheduled on a 15 minute basis adversely effects agent moral, having worked in both environments agents always find things to gripe about, but this hasn't been one of them. "

Again this proves Dave's theory - Ben you've researched the business case and have no specific evidence, investigation or data about agent or implementation impact - just a feeling. Surely barriers to implementation and probable impact form part of that same business case or is it only fiscal?

Speaking from the point of view of someone who develops staff, the attitude that "agents always find things to gripe about" indicates a degree of subjectivity about staff behaviours and significantly negates the part the company has in influencing staff attitudes. Why no concern for the fact that staff are always finding things to gripe about? Why the slant towards - its the agents who are the problem - and not how we manage, motivate, reward, learn from them and work cooperatively with them? Why no contact with union or staff representatives or HR?

On a side note, don't forget EU working time directive and country specific legislative practices regarding comfort breaks and schedules etc. As a matter of routine practice contracts often stipulate words to the effect that - changes in working patterns will be given in writing with 1 months agreement subject to the agreement of both parties.

I'm sorry to bang on about this but as Dave the topic is indicative of many of the issues identified by Dave in other threads which feeds into the corporate culture and grows.

If one was thinking of implementing an HR process then a stronger business case is generally required before go ahead, these changes will affect peoples' family lives - child care arrangements, travel - they might not be able to catch a bus and now hove to wait an extra half hour or more for the next. Dont we all as human beings deserve to have these issues taken into consideration?

Just a thought.

The original question was posed as we currently operate a 15 minute environment, our IT department wanted to shift to 30 minutes to save disk space and introduce a new reporting system. I asked the question to help me decide whether there would be a significant impact because of this.
The financial case was my main focus, however I was interested in all the other quantative stats as well as the qualitative aspects and will be including these in my report.
I actively promote listening to agents in terms of improving their working environment, we do offer 1 month notice to shift changes, we regularly conduct employee satisfaction surveys, and we always include HR in major schedule reviews.
I stated "With the correct management I don't feel getting scheduled on a 15 minute basis adversely effects agent moral, having worked in both environments agents always find things to gripe about, but this hasn't been one of them."
- I stand by that.
Scheduling on a 15 minute basis is not macro management, in fact it makes me chuckle to think so. It is merely rostering agents to start on the 15 minute as opposed to 30 minute, sure some agents may have issues with travel and child care, but [in our case] these are certainly taken into consideration. The financial analysis [in our case] has shown Scheduling on a 15 minute can cut costs by 10%, this is a fair amount of money for just having a schedule start time on a 15 minute basis.
Agents do always find something to gripe about, you can apply this to any industry, people always gripe about their work. Anyone who says everyone's happy at my company and doesn't complain - your lying or you are living in the clouds. A few years ago, I was an agent myself, this along with the satifaction surveys / focus groups has helped me understand the agent perspective.
I guess my point is you can lean the other way and lose sight of what your here to do, my job is to forecast a workload, produce efficient schedules to match this workload - satisfying the business need and the staff need. It's a balance between the two. I think it's obvious some companies can lean to much in favour of the business requirement, but it is also possible to lean to much in favour of the staff and lose sight of the business objectives.

>>>>The original question was posed as we currently operate a 15 minute environment, our IT department wanted to shift to 30 minutes to save disk space and introduce a new reporting system.

Understood, presumably IT didn't just want to move to 30 minute shift time, presumably they made a business case ie. researched the costs of new software/reporting system, usefulness and applications of new reporting system, likely impact etc

Allow me some latitude here if you will?

IT decide that they need to 'improve' reporting systems and may even have seen some funky new software, they don't check impact with other stakeholders, consult or conduct a business case they simply ask Dave for likely impact. They need to 'save space' as they spend too long doing backups and reporting. Saving space is a constant goal in IT and not a one of specific need, the perceived 'need' to improve (I say percieved becasue no one asks why do we need it) offers a convenient peg to hang 'space saving' upon.

Dave can measure current output and cost against change in shift pattern IT buy/implement new system. IT realise that they no longer need to do backups (because they have more disk space available), thus IT are able to save on the overtime of one or two staff members.

No one looks beyond the initial request. IT have saved overtime for two staff members (who may even be the ones driving the change through) and appear to be adding business 'value'. Dave is happy as he has proven if he runs his department more efficiently he can always save money. No one looks at the fact that new software may have been purchased without adequately identifying the total business cost or scope for implementation of an IT project. HR become livid as they are teh last people to discover the who workforce schedule (and HR process) has been reorganised to save on overtime for a couple of IT staff.

OK it probably didn't happen in your instance but it does happen. IT claim there is a technical need and no one questions their judgement or implementation processes.

>>>>agents always find things to gripe about, but this hasn't been one of them."

The absence of evidence does not mean that it doesn't exist especially if you are looking in the wrong place or asking the wrong questions.

>>>>>Agents do always find something to gripe about, you can apply this to any industry, people always gripe about their work.

Not so, the arts, sport, creative crafts and travel are 4 industries where satisfaction, happiness and love of the work are frequently expounded upon.

No offence meant.
Good luck with your implementation.