CCC is kicking off our latest research project. As with the beginning of every research project, we have a lot of questions right now, along with a few strong opinions. And while we explore this subject in more depth across the next few months, I thought it might be a good idea to share some preliminary thoughts and begin to gather feedback.
So…what will be the future of quality assurance (QA; a.k.a. quality monitoring)? Well, to answer that question, we need to first understand what our current state is. A few things here:
Click to Enlarge | What is the Focus of Your QA Scorecard?
- A legacy focus on productivity: Although most companies have shifted the majority of their focus to quality rather than productivity, many QA processes are still aligned to a cut and dry mindset that is very reminiscent of “just do it” productivity KPIs. In fact, a recent CCC survey revealed that 64% of companies use regimented performance criteria for QA (as opposed to encouraging a more tailored experience). In other words: Did the rep use the proper greeting? Check. Say the customer’s name? Check. Identify a sales opportunity? Check.While the sample metrics I’ve used here are a far cry from AHT or schedule adherence on the productivity—quality continuum, what we’re doing with these checklists is trying to accomplish “quality” with a productivity-focused, “check the box and move on” mindset.
- Those with more flexible criteria have challenges too: Recognizing the need to shift from the checklist mentality, some companies have implemented more flexible criteria on their QA scorecards (for example, how well did the rep show empathy? How well did the rep establish rapport?). But these types of criteria, by nature, are much harder to clearly define and are more subjective by nature, leading to a new set of challenges: reps increasingly appeal scores and calibration sessions become more difficult, to name two issues.
So it seems like we are stuck between that proverbial rock and a hard place. Either we have objective criteria that don’t capture the full picture of call quality or we have subjective criteria that lack standards and rep buy-in.
Here’s a question though: What if we could just ask the customer? I’m not just talking about tying survey scores to rep performance scores, but actually interviewing customers as a proxy for a QA scorecard, gathering that specific feedback, and coaching reps accordingly. It’s something we’ve heard some companies experiment with, and we have to wonder if it is the next new way to measure quality. It certainly comes straight from the customer, so it is as customer-centric as one could get.
We have actually profiled one Australian telecom company doing just this in our latest research on Engineering the “Low Effort” Customer Experience. This company switched to customer-directed QA to prevent reps from “gaming the system”, which was easy to do with the checklist scorecard. In three-minute post-call interviews, straightforward questions are used to compile a call score, and survey reps drill down for further detail as necessary. Because they are gathering specific customer verbatim, the subsequent coaching sessions are now powerful conversations based completely in Voice of the Customer. Since starting this approach, this company has seen a 58% drop in repeat calls, a 60% decline in calls rated as “poor,” and customer satisfaction has improved by 15%. Some pretty great results!
I’m very interested to know what our readers think. Are we taking things too far with customer-directed QA? Is the function destined to always include a checklist?
CCC members, be sure to visit our web site to read more about the implications of “new world” QA.
No related posts.
on April 22, 2010
Respond
Great idea for research. Quality seems to be an ever-shifting strategy. I am interested in seeing the results.
on April 22, 2010
Respond
Intriguing idea, seems like the next logical evolution however I think it’s a blend of ensuring both internal and external needs are being met accurately. We have many operating procedures where the purpose is to ensure business objectives are met such as cross-sell or maintain costs, that are invisible to the customer.
on April 22, 2010
Respond
I would be interested in how the reasearch comes back. Particularly when the caller may not feel satisfied because their wish of reimbursment was not granted.
on April 22, 2010
Respond
I’m right there with you, Marilyn. There cne be value in using both and internal review and VOC, as each method provides necessary feedback/data essential to gauge the impact of the service we provide to the relationship we want to have with our membership – considering that each contact is predicated on an exchange of value. Internal review allows for identifying knowledge and/or process gaps, and business objective results – some of those things that are more hard and fast, if you will. VOC gives you a picture of our connectedness to our members – how they feel valued, relevancy/accuracy/availability of solution, and ease of doing business with us – those things that foster loyal relationships. Using information from both channels provides a more holistic view with evidence of those things that matter to both the membership and the organization.
on April 22, 2010
Respond
Marilyn and Stacey–I think you make good points. Here is a question for you, though: If organizations use both internal and external metrics, how do we successfully “marry” the two assessments in a meaningful way? Should one receive more weight and attention than the other? And on the occasions where customer opinion digresses from company policy, how would you address that with reps?
on April 22, 2010
Respond
I really like the point on asking the customer’s perspective and not via survey. After all customers are what keeps are business thriving.
Sounds like the results from the Australian telecom company are pretty good.
on April 22, 2010
Respond
Lauren, marrying internal & external quality standards is a current challenge of ours. To date, they hold equal weight and are intertwined. (“Did you accurately follow internal procedures?” is sort of mixed in with “Did you meet the customers stated and unstated needs?”.) When customer opinion digresses from company policy, it becomes opportunity for policy review and reengineering, and does not necessarily impact rep performance unless there was a coaching opportunity for the rep to better speak to the policy. (Sorry if that’s too detailed!)
on April 23, 2010
Respond
In response to Lauren’s questions, we have objectives that marry well as captured through both internal observation and evaluation and member surveys (VOM). At this time, we use internal evaluation primarily when determining the performance of individual staff, with VOM serving as a coaching tool at the individual level. Both avenues are valuable in identifying process and procedure opportunities – and when member opinion differs from policy, we take care to review and identify the crux of the disagreement. Thankfully, we have found that many disagreements can be reconciled through education and understanding – and providing the best solution option available. What we’re attempting to do now is better identify those elements from each feedback channel that specifically underscore the individual contribution/impact of each employee in ensuring both organizational objectives and member loyalty are realized.
on April 23, 2010
Respond
Very interesting discussion. I LOVE the idea of getting verbal feedback from our customers! Never considered that, honestly. Surveys (NPS) are good to measure certain aspects of the customer experience but they cannot possibly capture everything. I think it’s extremely frustrating when I complete a survey that asks pointed questions to capture what the company wants to know but does not allow me to comment freely. The feeling I get is that the company wants to get answers to their key data gathering questions but they don’t care about my open and honest input. If I were interviewed to get a more wholistic picture of my experience as a customer, not only would I be able to more accurately convey my opinions/feelings, I would also feel more valued by the company. That translates into higher NPS results (because I think a combined survey/interview approach would be best), higher customer satisfaction ratings, longer retention, and certainly a feeling of empowerment for our customers. The overhead involved in implementing such a venture should be relatively minimal. A few top-performing FTEs with exceptional customer service skills should do the trick. We wouldn’t need to interview every caller and, as stated in this article, the interviews would be designed to be only a few minutes in duration. Properly planned and executed, I can see a lot of potential here!
As for implementing the feedback we receive from customers, I would think this would help tremendously! NPS is great for what it is but there are many opportunities with the existing process. Customer interviews would allow us to more quickly and accurately identify issues, provide feedback to reps (positive or negative), and determine what our customers value more and/or have more grievances with. We can then use those results to steer what we’re auditing for and/or how we audit. Our reps would likely approve of the verbal process more because a big grievance with NPS is that the customer’s comments and ratings may not be a direct result of service provided by the rep the survey is tied to. Verbal feedback would allow customers to specify who and what any dissatisfaction is related to and we can handle/assign the results accordingly.
I’m rambling but I could keep going. Bottom line, I love this idea! I think we should seriously consider it.
on April 25, 2010
Respond
I think you have to have both….although I do think that calibrating with a customer is an excellent idea. It could be quite expensive to garner a large enough sample size of VOC to act upon. I agree we need to get away from any type of check list mentatlity. I’ve seen a similar outbound approach in an Indian operation and considered it as an excellent best practice; where the outbound call to the customer happened “immediately” after the inbound this way you know the customer is still there and the interaction is fresh in their mind. Finally, when it comes to knowledge…if you only took customer feedback how do you know what the Customer Service rep said was accurate? The customer won’t even know until they actually use the information given; whether that is a healthcare question, finance, technical, etc. I’m not a propenent of getting rid of one over the other…however, leveraging VOC with Call Quality Monitoring is a win/win.
Just an opinion.
on June 1, 2010
Respond
I’m going to put forth that the strength of the quality program/process is going to be intimately linked to the effectiveness of the folks who are actually doing the coaching. You can have a really bad process/program, and great coaches will find ways to make it work to acheive success. You can have the best program/process, and weak coaches will make it worthless.
It seems pretty intuitive, but you kind of have to ask why. It seems to go back to a discussion from a couple of years about customers’ perceptions about good/great service in the face of the growing complexity of the business models (which ultimately led to the Customer Effort Score). A quality methodology can only focus upon the behaviors in order to be even arguably objective. The problem is that the customer expectations and customer experience requires the agents to be thinking all of the time. The scoring mechanism can only be a tool that gets us to conversations about the underlying thinking patterns — which comes full circle to the effectiveness of the coaches.
on June 16, 2010
Respond
[...] CCC research team is about a month into our upcoming research study on quality assurance (QA). One of the biggest trends we hear companies talking about is a major shift from a [...]
on July 7, 2010
Respond
[...] As a result of its efforts, OmniTel sees a 15% increase in customer satisfaction scores and a 60% decrease in calls rated “poor.” You can read more about OmniTel’s approach in another one of my posts. [...]