In the late 90s and early 00s the Food Network achieved incredible popularity with shows like “Iron Chef” & “Emeril – Live”.  Both shows featured entertaining, but difficult to replicate creations often requiring a laundry list of ingredients and difficult to execute cooking techniques. 

In the past couple of years, though, the network has found shows with a simpler message to be just as, if not more, compelling to audiences.  Semi-Homemade Cooking & Ten Dollar Dinners have simplified cooking for viewers and convinced aspiring chefs it doesn’t take a Culinary Institute degree to be successful in the kitchen.     

A similar timeline illustrates the rise in unnecessary complexity and the subsequent back-to-basics approach for the Quality Assurance function at a few service organizations I’ve spoken with recently.

Four or five years ago, contact centers heightened their focus on the quality of the interaction.  In response, QA scorecards grew in length and complexity, like the ingredient list for a recipe from a 5-star restaurant. 

But to what end?  Do all customers care about metrics like “using the proper greeting” and “tone of voice” and “using the customer’s name ‘x’ times”?  No. 

As a CCC member once put it, “It’s about Issue Diagnosis, Issue Resolution & Rapport.  If the rep gets those three things right it’s a good call.  What else do I need to know?”

Well, I’m not sure that you need to know much more at all!  Oh sure, we should measure to ensure the information was accurate and that the customer didn’t call back.  And in fact, as  my colleague Lauren has already written , CCC is researching the best QA strategies as we speak.  I like Lauren’s viewpoint on an increasingly customer-informed quality score.  But in my mind, QA should be focused on three straightforward elements:

1- Issue Diagnosis: Did the rep correctly identify the reason why the customer called us today?

2- Issue Resolution: Was the rep able to resolve the customer’s stated issue (and did they forward resolve potential future issues when appropriate)?

3-  Rapport: Did the rep work together with the customer to actively guide that customer through the interaction? 

If those three categories are a “thumbs-up”, you’ve got a good call. Of course, there’s still a compliance consideration in some industries, but let’s agree to start somewhere.

The challenge here is to figure out how to measure these three areas in a way that is fair to your reps and identifies actionable coaching opportunities.  And I’ve got to be honest here – we haven’t seen a whole lot of folks crack the nut on this one yet.  Some members use outbound customer interviews to dig deeper into customer survey responses – the output of the interviews is a quality score (derived from the customer) and customer verbatim on areas of improvement for future coaching sessions.  It’s a simple way to gather information on the three elements – plus it’s what’s important to the customer too.  Now that’s a recipe all of us can enjoy.

CCC Members – Looking for guidance on QA?  We’d love to help.  Have a great QA approach you want to share?  We’d love to hear it … contact me or any member of the research team to chat.

No related posts.