QAQNA

One Way to Save Time, Save Money & Get Better Data

Many companies ask their Customer Service Representatives (CSRs) to enter a "wrap code" at the end of a call so that the company can track what types of callers and what types of calls are being handled. In over 15 years of working with corporate call centers, I have yet to see a "wrap code" process that worked well and yielded valid data. Here's the problem:

• It's a hassle. Most CSRs have to enter the wrap codes during their After Call Work (ACW) and before the next call comes in. Because most call centers are routinely slammed with call volume, and CSRs can't finish their ACW before the next call is popped to their desktop, the wrap code becomes an annoyance that they consider secondary to the priority of the next customer who is on the line. They will ignore the wrap code or click on anything just to move on.
• Poor options. Call Type codes are too vague (the codes available don't match the actual reasons customers call) or too specific (there are hundreds or thousands of call types that become a quagmire for CSRs to weed through).
• It's perceived as useless. While many call centers gather this call type data, few share the data or why it's important. If CSRs don't understand why it's important and what the data is used for, they have no motivation to care about coding calls correctly.
• It is useless. Managers who understand that CSRs aren't faithful in appropriately coding the calls appropriately don't trust the data. Others simply don't know what to do with it and it becomes another thing that we waste time doing gathering data we will never use (think of the thousands of seconds clicking drop down boxes, looking for codes, thinking about what to put).

Getting an idea of who is calling, and why they are calling can, indeed, be a valuable piece of information. It can help you segment your call volumes to various specialists to be more efficient. It can help you address call routing and IVR issues which will save your call center time and money while improving customer satisfaction. It can even give you early warning of larger impending issues.

However, asking CSRs to code calls on the fly could very well be an expensive, inefficient way to gather loads of invalid data.

Here are two options to consider:

• If you have a QA team that is analyzing a large, random sample of calls, you just might get better call type data by asking them to code the caller and call type in their analysis. Be careful. Ensure that your QA team is, indeed, analyzing a random sample of all calls. QA teams are notorious for selectively excluding calls from the sample ("That one is too long, I don't want to take the time to score that one.")
• Having a person or a team doing a periodic call type analysis may be the most efficient and effective route to go. Randomly select a valid sample of calls from your recording pool and go through them simply to mark "Who called?" and "What were they calling about?" You can get through a ton of calls in a short period of time and will likely get better data than having CSRs coding every call.

Creative Commons photo courtesy of Flickr and hand-nor-glove

Managing Appeals & Challenges in QA

Special thanks to one of our readers, Sarah M., who sent an email asking about the process of a CSR challenging their Quality Assessment (QA) evaluation. Unless you've gone the route of having speech analytics evaluate all of your calls (which has inherent accuracy challenges of its own), your QA process is a human affair. Just as every CSR will fall short of perfection, so will every QA analyst. No matter how well you set up the process to ensure objectivity, mistakes will be made.

Because QA is a human affair, you will also be evaluating individuals who do not respond positively to having their performance questioned or criticized. There are a myriad of reasons for this and I won't bother to delve into that subject. The reality is that some individuals will challenge every evaluation.

So, we have honest mistakes being made, and we have occasional individuals who will systematically challenge every evaluation no matter how objective it is. How do you create a process of appeal that acknowledges and corrects obvious mistakes without bogging down the process in an endless bureaucratic system of appeals, similar to the court system?

Here are a couple of thoughts based on my experience:

• Decide on an appropriate "Gatekeeper." Front line supervisors, or a similar initial "gatekeeper" are often the key to managing the chaos. There should be a person who hears the initial appeal and rightfully acknowledges there was an honest mistake, a worthy calibration issue, or dismisses the appeal outright. Now we've quickly addressed to probabilities: the honest mistake can be quickly corrected or the appeal without standing is quickly dismissed.
• Formulate an efficient process for appeal. If an appeal is made that requires more discussion, than it needs to go a step further. I have seen many different set ups and scenarios this may successfully take. The "gatekeeper" might take it to the QA manager for a quick verdict. There might be a portion of regular calibration sessions given to addressing and discussing the issues raised by appeals. Two supervisors might discuss it and, together, render a quick decision.
• Identify where the buck stops. When it comes to QA, my mantra has always been that"Managers should manage." A process of appeal becomes bogged down like a political process when you try to run it democratically. The entire QA process is more efficient, including the process of appeal, when a capable manager, with an eye to the brand/vision/mission of the company, can be the place where the buck stops.

Those are my two cents worth. What have you found to be key to handling challenges and appeals in your QA program?

"I've already TOLD YOU THAT!"

This past weekend my wife had a little health issue. She is and will be fine, but her problems led to me taking her to the Emergency Rooom and then she was admitted to our local hospital for overnight observation.

• Upon entering the ER, we were taken to a room with a triage nurse who asked all about my wife's symptoms, condition, history and meds. She wrote everything down on a clipboard.
• She was wheeled to an ER room where she was transferred to the care of an ER nurse, who asked her the same questions that the triage nurse had asked.
• An ER doctor came in a while later and asked my wife the same questions the previous two nurses had asked. He ordered tests.
• The tests results came back and the ER doctor transferred my wife to the care of her family doctor's partner, who was on call. He came into the room and proceeded to ask my wife the same questions, once again, writing them down on a bunch of forms.
• It was decided that my wife should be admitted for observation and she was eventually transferred to a room. A nurse-tech came in the room and asked my wife the same questions she'd been asked by the triage nurse, that were asked by the ER nurse, which were asked by the ER doctor and then asked by attending physician (It feels like a sick Dr. Seuss book).
• A few minutes later her assigned nurse arrived and, guess what? Yep, the same battery of questions.
• The questions got repeated with the nursing shift change.
• Then got repeated again by the two nursing students who came in to take her vitals.
• They were repeated again by her family doctor who finally arrived to check on her the following morning.

My wife and I threatened to get a piece of poster board, write the answers to the same five or six questions we'd been asked by more than 10 different people. Then, when a new nurse or doctor entered the room we could point to the poster and say - "Here are the answers to your questions. If you have any new ones, you may ask."

We waited for one health professional to walk in the room and say, "I just read through your chart. From what I understand..."

It's the same frustration I hear from customers when I monitor calls and follow the call from the IVR (which never really works to pop the account information - we're not sure why - a task force was created between I.T. and the call center supervisory group a few months ago to look into it and work with the vendor who sold it to us, installed it and disappeared - but we haven't heard back) to the initial CSR to another department, to another rep in another department. Each time the customer has to provide the same account information, verification information and explain the reason for their call all over again.

Patients/Customers deserve better.

Creative Commons photo courtesy of Flickr and ruth flickr

Anticipating the Customer's Questions is Key to One-call Resolution

Great chess players are always anticipating their opponents moves. Great Customer Service Represenatives are always anticipating their customers needs.

One of my team members and I are conducting group call coaching this morning. We have 6-8 associates together and listen to an example of each person's phone call. The associates get to receive positive feedback from their peers and hear how others on their team approach very common calls. For this client, it works very well and has been an efficient way to call coach. The client has been doing QA for many years and the associates are, for the most part, mature in their attitude towards call monitoring and quality service.

In one call this morning, the associate provided the customer with the answer to the stated request, then proceeded to offer the caller additional information that he would need. The customer was taken by surprise by the offer, but clearly acknowledged that the additional information was necessary. By anticipating the customer's question, the associate not only provided extra-mile service, but also saved himself from having to take another call when the customer eventually realized he would need it.

One great way to identify anticipated questions is to carefully pay attention to the calls you receive. This can also be done by the supervisor or QA analyst as a part of their monitoring duties as a way of gleaning more than just a measurement of quality on a given call. If a customer is calling back after an earlier conversation a red flag should go up. Ask yourself "what information could I, or should I, have provided in the earlier call which would have eliminated the need for that follow up phone call?"

Anticipating related questions is a win-win for customer and company. Customers receive information they may not even know they need and the company eliminates unecessary phone calls in the future!

Creative Commons photo courtesy of Flickr and frankblacknoir

Thoughts from the Calibration Trenches

Yesterday was calibration marathon day. Three different calibration sessions with three different teams with a staff meeting scrunched in between. It's not exactly what most people would consider an enjoyable day at the office. Granted, compared to countless calibration sessions I've endured with many different client's, our calibration sessions are a cake walk.

Nevertheless, as I was driving home I got a call from one of my teammates struggling with discouragement after the session and we had a great conversation about the calibration process. It got me thinking about some basic lessons I've learned through the years in calibration:

• Calibration, by its' very nature, is a conflictive process. When you try to get a group of people to analyze the same call the same way, there are bound to be disagreements. The calibration session is not focused on the 90-95 percent of the call a team agrees on, but on the handful of things on which they disagree. You have to accept this going in and keep it in perspective. It's always wise to try and bring some levity and laughter to the session. Remind people of all the things that you agreed on which weren't conflictive. Keep the big picture in front of the team.
• Calibration is often not about who is "right" and who is "wrong" but how we are going to consistently and objectively approach and analyze a given behavior or situation. People will see things differently. Often, I recognize that our team is grappling with multiple, legitimate ways to analyze a given situation. Because a manager or a team decides to do it a particular way does not mean that another person's way of doing it was "wrong," it just means that someone had to choose the method that works best in that moment. A good manager will regularly encourage his or he team with this fact.
• A constructive calibration process will not get mired in a singular circumstance, but look for patterns and principles to apply across all calls. Many calibraiton sessions turn into a war over a small piece of one call. I am always asking myself, "what's the principle we can glean from this discussion that will help us be more consistent in scoring all of our calls?" Our team will keep a "Calibration Monitor" document that tries to summarize the general principles we discussd in the session which will aid all analysts with future calls.
• You have to choose your battles. I will sometimes feel very strongly about a given situation when I was the lone person in the room who seemed to view it that way. Making my argument and stating my case is only met with blank stares. Despite the tremendous personal effort it takes to let it go, I have learned that it makes no sense to keep arguing. If it is a worthwhile and relevant issue, then I will have another opportunity in future calibration sessions to make my point when more people might see it. If that opportunity never emerges, then I was making a mountain of a mole-hill anyway.

But, You're NOT the Customer

My wife and I are two very different people. Like many married couples, opposites attracted. At least, personality-wise. My wife is a bit of a lion. You always know exactly where she stands because she'll tell you. When she's upset, she roars. It's actually an admirable trait. I rarely have to guess where she stands. On the other hand, I'm much more of a Golden Retriever (I'm flashing on a scene from "When Harry Met Sally" when Meg Ryan says "Is one of us a DOG in this scenario?!"). I'm a people pleaser, so I tend to hide my true emotions from people in a given moment.

When dealing with customer service situations, there is a distinct difference in the ways my wife and react. My wife will make it very clear how she feels about a given situation. She will be very up front with the CSR and explain exactly what she expects, when she expects it, and what she will do if the situation isn't remedied. On the other hand, I will sit there, quietly smile, and nod my head. Then I'll quietly walk away and never do business with the company again....ever.

I share this because understanding human nature is important to QA. It's very common for me to hear supervisors and QA coaches analyzing a call based on their perception of what a customer might have been thinking...

• "The customer was like..."
• "If I were the customer, I would..."
• "I think this customer..."

Granted, if you have my wife on the line you're likely going to hear exactly what the customer was thinkng. (You still have to be careful, some customers will say one thing on a call but behave completely differently in their future purchase intent). But, if you have me on the line, you'd never know. That's why an objective QA process sticks closely to measuring things that you can hear (or not hear) and see (or not see) in the CSR's behavior. If you're fortunate, you've got some reliable research data that provides you with a picture of what your customers, in general, expect when they call. But, even with research data, there are always outliers in a pool of customers. Trying to divine what a given customer was thinking or feeling is a slippery slope.

Remember, you're NOT the customer on that call. QA is not a magic 8 ball peering into the mind of each customer on each call. Reliable QA defines, based on reliable data, which behaviors are likely to have the greatest impact on overall customer satisfaction if demonstrated consistently and done well. Then it measures if those behaviors are consistently demonstrated over time and a valid sample of calls, and it uses that data to coach CSRs towards better and more consistent performance on those defined behaviors.

What My Readers Tell Me Makes My Blog Stand Out

I had a pleasant conversation yesterday with a regular reader who, after two years, emailed me and asked to have a conversation. It made my day. In the course of our chat he mentioned to me why he appreciated my blog, and what made it stand out. I've heard similar comments before from other readers. I hear it regularly from the person in our office who is tasked with scouring RSS feeds for client related news and content. There are a lot of blogs and sites that waste your time, not to mention the energy required to click the link. There are blogs that continually make it a worthwhile stop. What differentiates a worthwhile blog from a waste of time?

Here's what I hear from faithful readers:

• Fresh content. While I admit to having periods of time when my posting slows down, there are many blogs that start with a flourish and then die a sudden death. Other bloggers have a great idea and the best of intentions but post once every few months or a couple of times a year. By that time, your readers have moved on to greener pastures.
  
• Original content. Many blogs do nothing but copy and paste content from other blogs or sites onto their post. While it's important to link out, and you want to share great content with readers, your readers want you to share what you know and what you think. I may share a tid-bit or summary of something I liked on another blog, but I always try to offer my own two-cents to expand the conversation for my readers.
  
• Worthwhile content. Nothing is more rewarding than when a reader tells me that my blog has helped them with their job, their QA team, and even their life. I started this blog with a simple principle. If I am faithful to giving people a few little nuggets of knowledge, experience and wisdom that helps them in a small way, then maybe they will trust me and my group to help them with some of the bigger challenges they face in their business and contact center.

Here's to worthwhile blogging, pleasant conversations, and mutual opportunities for growth and prosperity!

Creative Commons photo courtesy of Flickr and curiouslee

What Would You Add to the Leadership List?

Call Center Cafe recently posted Theo Gilbert-Jamison's top ten commandments to effective leadership:

1. Purpose
2. Respect
3. Excellence
4. Teamwork
5. Accountability
6. Character
7. Change
8. Communication
9. Self-development
10. Vision

Thanks, Theo! You've given us a great list, though even she admits that it's not inclusive. So, where does she hit the mark? What is she missing? What do you value in leaders that you don't see on the list?

Here are a few things I value in leaders that I'd add to Theo's list:

• Faith - Great leaders have faith in their teams, believing in their value and capability.
  
• Perseverance - Great leadership emerges out of great difficulty. Leaders endure tough times.
  
• Positive attitude - As a Vikings fan (don't hold it against me), I've noticed this year that when his team is down late in the game facing impossible odds, Brett Favre always walks to the huddle with a smile on his face. Leaders are motivators through their smile, and their joy in the task.

What would you add to the list?

Great Resolutions for 2010

Looking ahead to 2010? What are you going to accomplish? What are your goals? How are you going to make this year a banner year?

Here are a few suggestions to make 2010 a year of continuously improving quality:

• Survey your customers. The most fundamental mistake that companies make in assessing quality is ignoring what your customers think, want and expect. The second most fundamental mistake is making educated guesses about what your customers think, want, and expect based on questionable data. Make an investment in a truly random, focused survey of customers right after they've called your company. Get some good data that will allow you to make tactical, actionable decisions which will impact satisfaction, loyalty, and the bottom line.
• Clean up your QA process. Many companies have a QA process that was hobbled together on the fly just to get it done. It's got problems. The scale has issues. The CSRs have legitimate complaints. The QA team and supervisors fight like an old married couple. Make this year the year that you get the program streamlined, cleaned up and effectively working for you.
• Get calibrated. You know you've got "QA Nazis" on your team who are using the program to bludgeon CSRs into submission. You've also got "QA Hippies" who are letting CSRs get away with murder in an altruistic effort to boost their self-esteem. You know you need to get everyone on the same page and get them working together, but it's been too easy to just ignore it. It's a new year. It's a new decade. What a great time to start getting everyone working together and analyzing calls consistently.
• Increase QA's reach. QA data can be utilized for so much more than agent evaluation. What are you hearing from customers about the latest promotion? How can you correlate spikes in talk time to call types? What issues drive the most unresolved calls? Many call centers struggle with getting upper management to support investments in QA. What if QA provided more than just a CSR scorecard? What if QA provided tactical data that helps operations, marketing, IT, and sales make better decisions? It's a great year to start thinking outside the box with the things you're measuring!

A very Happy New Year to all of our readers and subscribers. Here's to a prosperous, high-quality year in 2010. If there's any way our group can help your team achieve your goals, please let me know!

Creative Commons photo courtesy of Flickr and optical_illusion

It's Like, um, You Know, Like, Just the Way I, Like, Talk

I was in Minneapolis a few weeks ago with my high school senior. We were visiting potential colleges and universities. Thus it was that I came across a column in the Star Tribune by Rick Nelson and Claude Peck called Withering Glance that had me laughing. This is definite bulletin board or team meeting material. They humorously chronicle one of a QA analyst's worst nightmares, which is the atrocious way many people converse in today's culture:

CP: So, like, Rick, you know what? I like, um, really like like our little talks. They are so amazing.

RN: No-yeah. Um, like, bee-otch, you know, huh? Wait, dawg, what were you saying?

CP: Speech pathologies, señor. Trying to weed out repetitive, unnecessary, inane, trendy and annoying tics of speech is not child's play. I'm, like, talking well is really hard. But so worth it, don't you think?

Having, like, just spent, like, an AMAZING weekend with my, like, high school senior, the column, like, hit the nail on the, like, proverbial head.

Along with voice tone, speech pathologies are sometimes difficult to coach. The QA coach is often faced with the retort "that's just the way I, like, you know, talk." What's worse, others in management will often defend that excuse. Our voice and our speech are learned behaviors. The same way a CSR can learn to control their fingers on the qwerty keyboard, they can learn to manipulate their voice and vocabulary to speak clearly and professionally.

The real question is whether, or not, it is worth the time, energy and resources to do so. I know some call center managers who would rather take someone off the phone rather than training them to change the way they speak and converse.

Have you had success coaching people regarding their tone or speech pathology? What worked? What didn't?

creative commons photo courtesy of Flickr and micronomics