Management are trying to tell me that Efficiency is based on number of calls taken - period! - As horrifying as this sounds, they are serious and have no appreciation or understanding of Call Centre dynamics...

We are utlising a SKill based routing (Symposium)system and would appreciate any ideas that you may have on the differing ways to calcuate individual efficiency rates/true calls etc.

We are always a step behind ( i realise that companies are focusing now more on quality) but I'm sure that you will all be able to discuss you views and calcutions on this topic.

Cheers
Taylor

Hi Taylor,

Welcome to CCV! It's always nice to see new faces. Like the name 'BalticHell Poland' - I'm feeling cold here in Edinburgh so I hate to think what it must be like over your way.

Anyway, yes, your call centre managers need toreally look long and hard at their strategy. Assessing the success of a call centre based upon its throughput is a bad idea - and others will surely jump in to expand on that, but I suspect you know this already. What I'd be interesed in doing is finding out a bit more about the rationale behind your call centre's choice of metric, as I suspect you could perhaps do far worse than persuade them to choose a more realistic efficiency metric - after all, efficiency is only half the story - effectiveness isequally as important, probably more so. So, to not address this and stress the 'throughput' paradigm is a very short-term view and in the longer term you may lose the respect and support of your customers/callers.

John

When the question comes up as to whether a company wishes to provide high quality or efficiency, the answer is....yes!

Quality is the most important aspect of true customer service, to be sure. But what is the cost of quality? What is the costof NOT providing quality? And where is the line between running an 'efficient' call center versus a sweatshop?

CallCentreVoice and the good people who frequent this site (David and others) will, I'm sure, provide some compelling quality advice and viewpoints. So, I will (of course) make a pre-emptive counter-statement in support of.....efficiency.

Efficieny is a component of high quality, in my opinion. While we should always determine a caller's need and fulfill their (even unexpressed) requests, I submit that no one wants to a)wait forever to have their call answered, and/or b)spend more time than is necessary on the phone with your company. Technology can help measure efficiency; however, there is no technology that makes your customers happy. That is up to you and your people.

With this said, some successful ways of utilizing your Symposium switch that will increase efficiency and SUPPORT quality are:
1. Operationally, a combination of cumulative service level (CSL) and occupancy measurements must be managed. CSL is defined as 'the percentage of calls answered in XX seconds or less', and I think 80/20 is a minimum. Occupancy is defined as 'the percentage of total phone time that an agent is either on a call or in wrap-up'. Depending on the size of your call center, 70%-85% should suffice.
2. Agents and their supervisors should, in addition to quality metrics, be measured on talk time and wrap-up time, both as separate metrics.

Quality measures must be addressed. To counter-balance efficiency metrics, things like call monitoring scores, customer feedback surveys, quality control audits and rewards for agent commendations should be in your metric mix. I look forward to reading this string......

::Brent now exits to a chorus of boos:: : )

Brent … I’m deeply deeply hurt that you should berate yourself so (GRIN)...

The customer focused bible certainly does NOT say, “Thou shalt be inefficient.” I too advocate the maximisation of efficiency. Would you like me to repeat that? I too advocate the maximisation of efficiency. Wow! Without maximising efficiency how could a business EVER maximise profitability?

Having said all that, I have to take issue with something you said (ready?)… You said, “Quality is the most important aspect of true customer service”

My learned friend (not a piss take), but please explain to me the difference between quality and efficiency?

If you are delivering efficiently you are delivering a quality service. If you are delivering inefficiently you are NOT delivering a quality service. QED.

Of course in reality these phrases describe two sides of the same coin (dollar & buck, quid & pound) and this is the problem. People feel they can, or worse have to, differentiate between the two when it is IMPOSSIBLE to do so.

I do of course understand what you are driving at. Where this premis originates is from is an organisational perspective of looking from the inside out and not from the outside in - your customers view. If you do not take the customer perspective then you most definitely have two separate coins. You not only have seperate coins but have two separate currencies originating from two separate planets many galaxies apart.

As you have said, the current ‘practical’ measure branded as ‘efficiency’ will never deliver to clients.

David

Great - some excellent points here -

however I'd like to stress that whilst a debate between qualitative and qauntitative measures is great - personally i'm only after looking at the ways other companies measure individual agent time and the effectiveness of that time.

Quality we handle but not as a performance measure (our union is cracking down on Call centre management principles and we are negotiating even the ability to record calls for training purposes at present!)

So, how does one fairly measure agent efficiency only based on ACD/Symposium metrics.

There are combinations of short calls, call length, time logged in, volume of calls, not ready, hold, transfer etc - If I can find a calucation that is fair and relevant and one that I can potentially build in quality (we have no recording or monitoring ability at present (see above note) at a later stage - that would be good.

There are a few of us here on the band wagon of developing a strategy for our call centres and identifying the direction that we want to go. However, constraints at present is the bottom line and I quickly need to present a range of ways to measure agent efficiency - not just throughput. Talking about quality etc will be important and will drive further direction, but the outcome for us must be a calculation.

Our service levels are all 70%/30seconds. Cultural changes in the org to even manage support and backup staff are in the process - but again - culturally this is a big change. Acheinving a service level, doesn't mean we are sufficient. There are loads of problems presently - but we can only make a start in a limited attempt to deliver quality.

Talk time and wrap time is what we presently do - but it doesn't reflect whether transfer, holds etc, short calls, volume - something about true calls rings a bell, but I can't remember - working too long in Poland has limited my ability to think and remember in English!.

Cheers
T

Sorry, Baltic - if brevity is the soul of wit, I'm afraid I'm witless....

David, did you and I just end up on the same side of the fence? I'm not sure that's any fun at all! I will spend some time re-reading your post, and will respond soon.

Baltic, call centers that have successfully integrated efficiency measurements all use basically the same types of metrics, in my experience. I'll try to flesh this out better than my last post - the trick is to define, then align. In other words, determine what the metrics should be, understand their inter-relationships, then make sure that people at all levels of the organization are held accountable for their contribution. Key efficiency metrics are:

Director level: Occupancy (or productivity, or utilization, depending on your vernacular). This is measured as the percent of total logged in time that is spent on a call (talk time) or in wrap-up (after call work time, or unavailable time). This should be a standard report in any switch.

Operations/Managers: Forecast accuracy, schedule accuracy, schedule adherence. To maximize efficiency, the call volume forecast must be accurate to with 5% on a daily basis. Next, the agent schedules must be accurate to this call volume. Overall agent adherence to schedule (on time, breaks and lunches taken at the right time, non-productive time is scheduled and managed) is where the rubber meets the road, however. This should be managed on a half-hourly basis by the operations team. Requires a good WFM tool, and real-time adherence reporting from the switch.

Supervisors: Team talk time, team after call work time, team schedule adherence.

Agents: Quality metrics aside, agents should be measured on average talk time, average wrap-up time, attendance, schedule adherence. As a management team, you should determine, based on recent averages and long-range goals, where these specific metrics should fall. IE, maybe the average talk time for the office is 180 seconds,so 175 is the agent metric. Wrap-up is 30 seconds, so 20 is the agent metric. Attendance policy should be enforced (lates and absences) as a performance metric to ensure agent compliance, as should schedule adherence.

Hold time should be builtinto the average talk time in the switch, transfers and short calls should be part of your original average talk time calculation. All of this should be standard reporting in the switch.

Sorry for the long post, Baltic. I've got some neat charts and formulae that I'd be pleased to send to you, if you wish, and if you are using MSoft Windows 98 or better.

Brent

Brent,

If your charts might be of use to other members, why not send them to me and we can cobble together a static article on 'Voice? What do you think about that idea?

Just a thought...

John

John, I'll pull a few things together in PowerPoint and e-mail to you.