At CCC we recently completed our annual performance reviews, and it’s gotten me thinking about talent.  More specifically, our high-potential talent and how to keep them around.  Sure, some folks tell me career options are limited in the service world – and there’s ‘healthy’ attrition of individuals who aren’t good fits.  But our top frontline staff, the ones who can just get it done – don’t we want to do everything in our power to keep them?

And the news from one of our sister programs, the Corporate Leadership Council (CLC), isn’t good.  In a recent article in the Harvard Business Review, their study of over 20,000 ‘emerging star’ employees found some startling facts:

• 1 in 3 high-potential employees are disengaged from their job – and are far less productive as a result
• 1 in 4 intends to leave their current company within the next year
• 1 in 5 see a misalignment between what the company wants and their own personal aspirations

Sound scary?  Well, it definitely got my attention.  And it got me thinking about what we can do to swing these statistics back in our favor. Read More »

I recently worked with a member to determine optimal service organizational structures and staff counts.  I began my research with our new benchmarking data for 2009, attempting to find relationships between center staff size and various productivity and quality metrics.

The most concerning relationship I found was a strong correlation between larger staff size and a higher average number of contacts to resolve issues.

While this was a quick-hit analysis, and not an intensive deep-dive, I believe it highlights one of the most difficult challenges larger centers face: decreased individual ownership of issues, leading to unnecessary repeat contacts.

While we don’t have a comprehensive model to understand why this relationship exists, my hypothesis is that larger operations, foster a “just a number” mentality among staff.  The outcome: reps believe if they don’t give 100% one day (but still passably handle calls, meet QA requirements, etc.) they’re doing their job, especially as it pertains to the thousands of customers who have issues.

I know you’re asking, “Brad, are you suggesting we get smaller?”  Let’s be realistic here – that’s not going to happen. But, I do think you should be asking, “How do I make my center feel smaller?” Read More »

They say that strong communication is the key to any healthy relationship.  The principle holds true, of course, for both home and work.

Click Image to Enlarge

And while the role of the service and support organization is primarily to be a communicator—and in fact many organizations we work with have upskilled staff on all sorts of tactics for improved interpersonal communication with customers—we’re apparently doing a poor job when it comes to communicating with cross-functional colleagues, particularly as it relates to cascading voice of the customer data.

Here are the facts from this CCC  research on sharing Voice of the Customer (VOC) with internal business partners: Read More »

Last week a company asked me how much more first contact resolution (FCR) improvement it has left.  The company knows its FCR rates—the ability to resolve an issue on a single contact—aren’t perfect, but at 84%, it finds it increasingly difficult to move the dial.

As I shared some of our benchmarks, I couldn’t help but comment how inflated some of the figures are—95% and above in some industries in the phone channel, and even higher rates in the e-mail channel.

This wide benchmark variance results from highly diverse definitions and measurements of issue resolution, most of which are not terribly accurate or beneficial.

Most FCR metrics have a vital flaw–they track assumed issue resolution.  Customers typically believe that upon interacting with the service organization, the issue has been resolved.  And so asking the customer via a survey or frontline rep, “Was your issue resolved?”, as conventional wisdom dictates, inevitably leads to a “yes.”  Yet unbeknownst to the customer, he may have to call back for a related issue or obtain clarification. Read More »

If you’re like most of your peers, you’re on the lookout for fast and effective ways to cut expenditures in today’s cost-constrained environment. On the top of many executives’ lists – relaxing their average speed of answer (ASA) to cut back on staffing requirements. It’s an instant win for many contact center executives, but not one they exercise freely.

The prevailing belief is customers don’t want to wait on hold, so we’d better pick up the phone fast.  Companies spend significant resources to determine what ‘fast’ means to the customer, closely benchmarking their service levels with their peers. Changing their goal from 80% of calls answered in 20 seconds to 90% answered in 30 seconds becomes an agonizing decision without the right data.

So, what are customer breaking points?  Turns out there are greater tolerances for waiting time variance than often thought:

Click to Enlarge

• Customers preferences peak at 30 seconds, which seemingly indicates that they expect to wait that long, or possibly even that customers like to wait.
• Roughly between 30 and 50 seconds is when service levels impact the experience, though only marginally.
• Beyond 50 seconds the experience reaches a true impact point.

Read More »