QAQNA

Are You Creating a "Powerful Customer Experience?" You Could Win!

I'm proud to have been asked to be part of the faculty for ICMI's ACCE Conference & Expo in Las Vegas October 5-9. My pre-conference workshop will focus on building an effective Quality Assessment scorecard. If you're building or revamping your QA scale, it would be a profitable 3 1/2 hour workshop for you and your team. The week will include a veritable plethora of valuable workshops, keynotes, and networking opportunities.

ICMI has just announced a contest in which you could win a free trip to the event! All you have to do is create a short, creative video describing how your call center is improving the power of your customers' experience.

Come on QAQnA readers! Get your team's creative caps on and come meet me in Vegas!!

Double Dinging and Domino Dinging

In the world of Quality Assessment (QA) there are few injuries more heinous to a Customer Service Representative (CSR) than to "double ding" them. In the parlance of Call Center QA, this means that you mark them down on two different QA elements for the same behavioral infraction. For example, the CSR leaves the caller in a looooooooong period of unexplained silence (also known as "dead air"). The supervisor or QA analyst marks the CSR down on the QA form for "leaving the caller in dead air" and "not matching the caller's pace." The result is that the one behavior is being scored in two different places on the QA form. Thus, the dreaded "double ding."

Note: In many cases, "double dinging" result from poorly defined elements on the scale. The person analyzing the call doesn't know where a behavioral infraction "fits" in the scale, so they mark down in a couple of places. If you've got people "double dinging" you might want to take a look at your scale.

There are times, however, when one behavioral infraction results in a "domino effect." For example, the CSR pulls up the customer's account and finds that the previous CSR did not handle the customer's issue correctly. Rather than simply correcting the mistake, the CSR proceeds to complain to the customer how their coworker made such a bone-headed mistake. The CSR rambles on about how the company rushes people through training and puts them on the phone before they are ready. In this scenario, the CSR's disparaging comments result in the QA analyst "dinging" him for "tearing down the customer's confidence" but also for "not managing the length of the call." In effect, the CSR's inappropriate rant had a domino effect. He not only tore down the customer's confidence in the company with his negative comments (ding one), but his incessant rambling also resulted in keeping the customer on the phone longer than necessary (ding two).

When analyzing calls, it's important to make a distinction between "double dinging" (penalizing the CSR twice for the same behavior) and "domino dinging" (recognizing that one behavior had a domino effect, resulting in multiple infractions).

Creative Commons photo courtesy of Flickr and pixiesticks23

QA is a Human Enterprise

I was grieved to recieve a call yesterday informing me that one of the young operators at a client's call center was in a tragic car accident and is being removed from life support.

For all the numbers and data, Quality Assessment is, at the root of it, a human enterprise. Contact Centers become family. I have always attempted to treat every person I coach and train with dignity and respect (even when, in the moment, individuals may react in angry, disrespectful ways).

It's a sobering, but worthy reminder today. Life is fragile. Let's endeavor to treat each other with care.

Can You Afford the Hidden Cost of Off-Shoring?

The question has been debated for the better part of the last decade. "Does it make sense to send your customer service call center off shore?" It certainly made cents to do so. With lower labor and operating costs, the off-shoring craze saved a ton of money to the bottom line.

But, what is the cost in customer satisfaction? Some companies learned that the cost of customer ire was not worth the savings.

Now, there is more evidence that there is a specific, calculated cost in customer satisfaction when U.S. customers perceive that a call center is off-shore.

Does this mean that off-shoring never makes sense (or cents)? No. One answer does not fit all in this debate. Nevertheless, there is more warning than ever that companies should calculate the cost of lost statisfaction while they are calculating the savings in operation budget.

Praise or Criticism? What Works Best?

It's a classic debate in the world of call center quality assessment (QA). Do you use QA to praise Customer Service Representatives (CSRs) so as to encourage them and build their self-esteem? Do you use QA to be critical and hold CSRs accountable to keep them honest? Is there a happy medium, and if so, where is it?

When giving seminars, I often use the word pictures of the "QA Nazi" (who uses QA as a means of beating CSRs into submission) and the "QA Hippie" (who uses QA to give CSRs smiley faces and make their world a "happier place") to represent the extremes on both sides of the spectrum.

My coworker recently forwarded an article to me from NY Times Magazine about some research that's being done on the power of praise and criticism with children. While the research focuses on parents and their children, I would submit that there are some lessons for us all to learn in the QA, training and coaching arena.

The most recent research is finding that undue praise can actually have a negative effect. Those who are constantly and generally praised tend to become more competitive, less motivated and less willing to put out effort towards improvement.

Does this mean that praise isn't important? Not at all. What the research is discovering is that praise is a powerful force when it is specific and sincere.

I'm sure the debate will never end, and I'm not sure that it should. A professor of mine said, "truth lies at the tension between the two extremes," and I've found it apt in many situations. Finding that right balance between praise and accountability is elusive, but one to which all QA teams should strive. 

I continually come back to a few key tenets:

• Know what drives your customer's satisfaction, by asking them
• Define specific, desirable behaviors that will meet & exceed those expectations
• Measure those specific behaviors
• Give consistent, honest, data-led feedback to CSRs telling them which behaviors they are consistently performing, and which behaviors theyare inconsistently demonstrating
• Train and coach CSRs toward improvement
• Praise CSRs for the specific, documented acheivements and improvements
• Hold CSRs accountable for specific, documented lack of performance

Customer Service "Hall of Shame" a Lesson in Management

No less than three alert readers forwarded me MSN Money's 2009 Hall of Shame. So, I'd better pass it along! Nine of the ten "winners" are repeat offenders. Some might argue that turning things around for some of these corporations is like making a u-turn in an aircraft carrier. Nevertheless, many companies and industries have taken the recession as an opportunity to improve customer service and win market share, and clear improvements have been noted by consumers in certain sectors. In seems, therefore, that annual designation on the Hall of Shame points to a lack of true commitment from the executive and management teams of these companies to make the changes necessary.

The Hall of Shame is a great reminder of the oft forgotten edge on the double edged Customer Service sword. What Customer Service Reps (CSRs) say and how they say it is only part of solution. Positive change in customer service requires an executive management team that is committed to correcting the failed policies and procedures that CSRs are forced to manage and support on the front lines.

QAQnA Makes "Top 10" List Once More!

A heartfelt "thank you" to Call Centre Helper magazine for naming QAQnA one of the web's "Top 10 Call Center Related Websites" once again this year. We are priviledged to have our little blog be among such great company!

See the complete list.

Here's to another great year!

The Effect of Metrics on Customer Satisfaction

There's been an interesting conversation happening among the North American Call Center Professionals group on LinkedIn. The question originated with someone asking how you measure the effect that abandon rates and ASA have on Customer Satisfaction. In this case, the call center had implemented some internal initiatives to move their metrics, but wondered how it may have affected their customer's satisfaction.

Several have contributed to the discussion:

"This is the ageless question! The answer is like noodle soup. You run out of noodles or broth but not at the same time. My research found the following, 40% of abandons were wrong numbers, 25% solved the problem or did not need services or purchase, 25% called back, 5 percent were not sure why they called, 5 percent were drunk and just wanted to talk to someone! (Smile) We called every number abandoned during a week period to get this data!" - Arnold Talbott

"The correlation between ASA and satisfaction/loyalty can be measured and quantified, as can the correlation between other access-channels/issues and contact-handling attributes by correlated against satisfaction/loyalty and positive/negative WOM. It is an industry and company specific item to be measured. While generalized numbers (TARP's or anyone elses) can serve as a strawman, you really have to measure your customer's experience." - Jeff Maszal

I really liked Jeff's last statement, and completely concur. If you really want to know how your abandon rates or ASA are affecting customer sat, then a small, focused customer survey can easily do the trick. Over a period of time, call customers who abandoned the call and those who did not and ask them a few questions about their overall satisfaction with the experience. Do the same thing with customers who experienced a long wait in queue versus those who had a short wait.

These types of surveys can be relatively simple and do not need to cost an arm and a leg because you're limiting the scope of your inquiry to one basic question: "How satisfied were you with the experience?" The key is not to rely on industry wide numbers that may, or may not, reflect your customer's views. As our group regularly conducts custom surveys like these for clients, we find that there is no substitute for asking your customers about their experience and satisfaction when they called your call center.

If you would like to join my network on LinkedIn, you may use my email address tom@cwengergroup.com to send an invitation!

Why Are We Here?

When I present workshops and seminars about setting up a Quality Assessment program (QA), I always start by asking the participants to discuss why the purpose of the QA program and what the real focus of the program is going to be:

CSR focused QA programs often exist to motivate and build up the self-esteem of the front-line CSR. It becomes a way to give folks a pat on the back.

Corporate focused QA programs usually exist to hold the corporate line and hold CSRs accountable to comply with programs, policies and procedures. It becomes a leverage tool.

Customer focused QA programs most often attempt to measure interactions from the customer's perspective. It becomes a microscope.

Existential QA programs generally exist for no apparent reason other than for a company to say "we have one, therefore we must care about customer service." It becomes meaningless.

Of course, you may detect traces of all four within your existing QA program. Nevertheless, I find that most programs will have a determined bent in one of the four directions.

Which way does your QA program bend? What gives it away? Which would you prefer? What could you change to make it what you think it should be? Please share!

Measure What You Know, Not What You Perceive

I am a patient person. Nevertheless, I've learned that I can also be an emotional volcano. I am very slow to anger, and I rarely erupt, but there is a limit to how much frustration I will bear before the explosion is bound to occur. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it is true about me. Because of this, family, friends, and service providers will often misread me and my responses. I don't look angry. I'm not screaming and yelling. So, they conclude, everything is just fine when it's not. In reality, there's an eruption brewing just below my calm exterior.

You can't always tell what a person is thinking and feeling.

When creating criteria for your Quality Assessment (QA) scale or monitoring form, it's best to clearly define the behaviors you're listening for from the Customer Service Representative (CSR) on the phone. The easiest way to stay objective is to measure that which you can hear and know. Keep your criteria limited what the CSR says to the person on the other end of the conversation.

It's quite common to find companies or individuals basing their assessment on what they perceive the customer thinks or feels. I've seen QA scales that are based on how well the CSR met or exceeded the customer's expectations. However, unless you interview each customer, you're making specious judgements about what that customer thought of the experience. In addition, some customers will never be satisfied. It would not be appropriate to rate the CSR's effort based on an uncontrollable outcome.

People also like to make arguments based on the perceived response or lack of response from the customer. "I shouldn't be penalized for not saying 'please,'" a CSR might argue, "because the customer clearly didn't care whether I said it or not." But, you don't know what that particular customer thought, felt or perceived. Just like my friends thinking that I'm perfectly calm when there is an eruption brewing beneath the surface. QA is not intended to be a crystal ball that looks into the mind of each customer.

We can know, for a fact, what drives our customers' satisfaction on the whole. A good customer satisfaction survey will provide us with this information and it can be critically important in defining the elements we expect as part of our QA criteria. But to try and judge an individual call based on perception of the customer's response is an exercise in futile subjectivity.

We can't control or accurately read every customer's mind, but we can control what we say to each customer and how we say it.

Creative Commons photo courtesy of Flickr and nancee_art