Coaching

Automate your Quality Process with Speech Analytics

Oct 8th, 2012
by Liam Anderson.
2 comments

 

Quality management projects in contact centers have not always been especially effective in the past. One of the main reasons for this is that it is not possible for human quality monitors to listen to every call. Speech analytics technology can get us closer to the ideal of an automated quality monitoring process.

Will technology enable contact centers to do without quality managers?Most speech analytics systems work by identifying key phrases which are input into the application. They can either be phrases that the agent must say or must not say, or they can be phrases that we would like to hear the customer’s say. These include “buying signals” during a sales conversation, or phrases that we hope the customer’s won’t say, which indicate that the conversation is not proceeding as planned.

Most calls have prescribed opening and closing phrases. These ensure that the company is identified to the customer clearly and consistently. At the end of the call, set phrases also help to ensure that the customer is left with a polite last impression of the company in his mind.

The Script Adherence

Script adherence is related to Average Handling Time (AHT). When agents go “off script” for large parts of the call, their AHT usually increases. Speech analytics can identify the calls where the agents do go “off script” and the lengths of these calls can be analyzed to see just how much it affects AHT.

Script adherence is also important for legal and regulatory compliance. The set phrases, such as security questions, warnings that calls will be monitored and recorded and the verbatim recital of terms and conditions can all be input into the speech analytics application. In this way, agents’ adherence can be monitored quite closely.

The “yes or no problem”

Another area which is ripe for automation is the verification of verbal consent. Not all speech recognition systems can recognize individual words such as “yes” or “no”. In addition, without some kind of context, it is difficult to be sure that they would recognize the specific “yes” or “no” you are looking for in the call. What is likely to work better is to include the agent’s question to which the “yes” or “no” is the required answer in the phrase that is the search term with a conditional “yes” or “no” added to the end. In the early stages of implementation, a certain degree of trial and error will be needed to identify and input the variants of “yes” or “no” which customers may use. UK customers, for example, might say “Yeah”, “Go on then”, “Why not?” or “Aye” instead of “Yes”.

Certain customer phrases may also be worth analyzing. Listening to successful sales calls will enable the sales manager to identify commonly used “buying signals” which show the customer’s interest in the product. These might include: “How much does it cost then?”, “When’s it going to be delivered?”, “Have you got it in green?” or “When do I have to pay by?”. Identifying the calls these appear in and comparing them with the calls’ outcome or wrap-up codes may help the sales manager quantify opportunities that are being lost and focus on where his sales agents need additional training and coaching.

In the support environment, customers use specific phrases that relate to certain issues, products or services. By entering these phrases into the speech analytics application, the system will produce an analysis of how many calls are made which relate to certain issues without depending on codes input by agents. It may even be a worthwhile exercise to analyze how closely the agents’ issue codes match the results of the speech analytics, and then look at the correlation of the 2 sets of results against First Call Resolution (FCR) figures.

Spotting unhappy customer

Customers also express their dissatisfaction. Where they use commonly occurring phrases such as “This just isn’t good enough” or “I’m not at all happy about this”, these can also be entered into the application and reported on. Once again, these can be compared with outcome codes for specific calls which may give us further insights into how we can improve FCR.

As with many other aspects of technology, speech analytics, if used properly, will enable us to gain further insights into how are agents are performing on a global scale and help us to drill down, identify and solve the issues.

Learn more about ZOOM Solution for Speech Analytics.

Liam Anderson is an experienced contact center professional who has worked in the Asia Pacific region, Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. He has an MBA from the University of Leicester. With ZOOM International, he has set up and run consultancy projects in Europe and the Asia Pacific region for large regional banks, a chain of luxury hotels, national telecommunications companies and outsourced call centers. Connect with Liam on LinkedIN.

 

 

Bookmark and Share

Old evaluation forms: vintage or vinegar?

Nov 12th, 2011
by Moses Velasco.
No comments yet

Just because your agents start to score better using your evaluation forms, don’t be tricked into thinking your job is done! Letting your evaluation form become outdated is a typical quality assurance mistake. A great evaluation form will mature over the course of time based on how you and your team learn, improve and drive to meet your goals across various KPIs. How do you ensure your evaluation forms help drive your goals and keep up with your progressing work force? What do you need to consider in building an evaluation form, grading form, or questionnaire?

Your evaluation forms, are they vintage or vinegar?

Identify what the key drivers of your targeted KPI are. For example, we know that average handle time can be effected by product knowledge, script adherence, system use and call handling skills. These drivers may change as your agents become efficient in meeting them and require updating.

Group structure and group related questions. Key drivers should be broken down into groups containing related questions and given a weight of importance depending on how importantly that group effects performance or meeting your KPI goals. For example, “Product Knowledge” will be the title of one of your question groups for addressing AHT. Additional groups and questions may be added as important areas are discovered. Group weightings may also shift as agents become efficient in specific areas. When agents become very efficient in System Use, shift the weighting of importance to Call Handling Skills.

Questions should have more than two possible answers that provide scoring depth and allow for richer analytics. Questions should directly assess a targeted area. For example “Did the agent understand the customer’s needs by restating the customer’s issue?” Using answers such as Yes -100% No- 0% leaves very little area for analytics. If the answers had various scoring such as Yes-100%, Partially 50%, No-0% this will indicate that the agent can easily be coached to correct behavior instead of needing modular training which saves time for everyone. Taking it a step further by providing four answers will eliminate the option for the evaluator of just taking a middle ground stance. This will push them to provide an answer that can truly identify root causes.

Design each group and question not only for analytical scoring structures but also for coaching feedback and maintenance of historical feedback. When evaluations are completed, agents should have access to them and be able to take in valuable constructive feedback, aligning their work with the QA standards. This will enhance any coaching or one to one sessions that may be necessary to correct behavior. Users should see a track record of improved performance across the key drivers of any KPI.

The evaluation form is the back bone of all quality assurance campaigns. Using this as a foundation to address your KPIs will provide a solid starting point for your path of continual improvement. Ensure your evaluation form matures along with the improvement which will drive your goals.

 

Bookmark and Share

Self-evaluation: critical, empowering and creating ownership

Nov 8th, 2011
by Moses Velasco.
No comments yet

If you have thought of something, you will own it, believe in it and make the changes necessary to achieve it.

When it comes to motivating an agent to change their behavior, if they come up with the idea to make change on their own they are more likely to do it. I’m specifically talking about agents self-evaluating their own interactions. I, as well as my peers, have found that coaching, training and prescribing techniques or changes to agents is met with open arms but quickly fades as the coaching or training session closes. They can walk out of the meeting with all the best intentions, but as soon as that first call comes through, somehow that previous discussion is a distant memory. This is only to be proven through countless feedback forms going back, in some cases for years, that address the same issues.

I have seen agents come in bright eyed with ideas of their own on how to improve their call handling or sales performance following self-evaluations and make those changes. They were empowered, enlightened and willing because it was their own idea, their own realization! Our jobs are much easier then. I would rather praise an agent every time for making a change they decided to make themselves and coach them to support their goal than to have those discussions that disciplinary action may be required if they don’t correct their behavior.

Some will argue that agents would score themselves intentionally high with hopes of increasing their QM statistics. Some will argue that it is too expensive or time consuming to take the agent off the phones to conduct their own evaluations. I have found, more times than not, that people are fairly self-critical and judge themselves with higher expectations. If there is any question, that is what the calibration process is for. I personally have found that agents can complete self-evaluations during idle time and make changes in their behavior without as much input from coaches or supervisors.

"The unexamined life is not worth living." Was Socrates the father of self evaluation?

When an agent uses a grading form designed by the key stakeholders in QM, they instantly have transparency about what is expected of them. They have the rules of engagement. They will work with the understanding of what is important to the company, to customers and where the important changes are needed and they make them.

Don’t get me wrong, coaching and training maintains its high level of importance and is extremely necessary. Why not supplement it with an additional tool? For those of you whose agents don’t conduct self-evaluations, I highly recommend giving it a shot. It will give them insight into company expectations, empower them to make change, and give them ownership!

Bookmark and Share

Size does matter! The case for short evaluation forms

Oct 25th, 2011
by Liam Anderson.
No comments yet

Contact centers that measure quality often use a very long evaluation form that probes every aspect of an agent’s performance during a call. These forms have more than 20 questions, with a selection of 6, 7 or 8 possible answers for each question. The contact center manager will tell you that he “scores” 1 call per agent per week. At the same time, he will also complain that nothing appears to be happening, call quality does not appear to be improving. The quality management process becomes a routine that does not deliver any results.

Sounds familiar? Maybe there is another way.

A quality management process does not work because calls are scientifically evaluated. It works because agents are told where they need to improve and given the necessary coaching, training or additional motivation to do so. The number of evaluations and feedback sessions is a greater factor in changing agent behavior than the depth of analysis.

Why not change the way calls are evaluated? Have a generic short evaluation form with a maximum of 10 questions, with a maximum of 4 answers each. It is designed to monitor the key drivers of agent performance and spot issues, nothing more. With the right technology, evaluators can listen to a call and grade it using a shorter questionnaire in the time it takes to find and listen to the call plus an extra 2 or 3 minutes to grade it. With the right technology, the time needed can be reduced to the length of the call plus those 2 or 3 minutes to grade it, the call will be found and attached to the evaluation automatically. Evaluators can easily evaluate 2 or 3 calls per agent per week using this form. The generic form works like an air traffic control radar that can spot an aircraft 100 miles away.

Long range radar screen - gives advanced warning of issues

When they encounter issues, supervisors coach the agent and give them additional evaluations, using a shorter form with 4 or 5 questions that is tailored to the specific driver of operational success where the agent is having challenges. This specialized form will lead the evaluators to give specialized coaching in the areas that the agents need to fix. This works like the shorter range approach radars that they have at airports that give a much more detailed view. They enable the airport’s air traffic controllers to bring the plane in to land safely, even in thick fog.

A safe landing in the fog.

With this approach, maybe more contact center managers can bring their agents in to a safe landing when they are having issues instead of having to clear up the wreckage afterwards.

Bookmark and Share

Average Handling Time – What goes up, must come down!

Sep 29th, 2011
by Liam Anderson.
No comments yet

Average Handling Time (AHT) is frequently the most important KPI a contact center can monitor. It is very closely related to the cost of a call. Staff wages are the main variable cost of a contact center, they make up 70% of contact center expenses. If the call is longer, it costs the organization more to provide it.

So what drives AHT up and how can we bring it down? Here are the “drivers” of AHT:

  • Script adherence. When an agent follows a script, the call has a “road map” that enables him/her to complete the transaction in a quick, pre planned way ensuring that all requirements are covered as quickly as possible. When agents don’t follow the script, AHT will increase.
  • Product knowledge. It doesn’t matter whether the agent handles customer enquiries or sells outbound, s/he needs to know what s/he is talking about. In this way, s/he is more likely to complete the transaction successfully and quickly.
  • Application/System use. Inbound customer service programs often use complex CRM systems which take considerable skill and experience to handle quickly and effectively. An agent who is “all fingers and thumbs” can slow the call down considerably because he will not be able to process the customers transaction as quickly as possible.
  • Call handling skills. We talked about agents following scripts. The other participant in the conversation, the customer, never follows the script! An agent who is skilled in handling diffcult or upset customers can solve their problems more quickly and get the required result, because s/he knows the techniques to deal with him quickly effectively and politely.
  • Escalation. There are 2 ways this can increase call length. An agent can escalate a call he could have handled himself. This can increase the call costs not only because of the extra time the customer has to spend talking to the higher level agent, but also because that agent may well be paid at a higher rate. On the other hand, if the agent does not escalate when he needs to, he may spend a lot longer trying to solve a problem he doesn’t have the knowledge and skills for than a higher level agent who is better qualified and more experienced.

So how can we bring AHT down? The way that works is to set up a quality improvement project along 6 sigma lines, including the 5 phases of Define, Measure, Analyze, Design and Verify (DMADV).

AHT reduction project process diagram

Having defined the issue as the need to reduce AHT, a specially written questionnaire can be used to measure the influence of each of the drivers on the overall situation. The statistics are then analyzed to identify which of the drivers above are pushing AHT up. Once the numbers are in and the drivers have been revealed, further questionnaires are designed to form the backbone of a cyclical improvement program where agents are evaluated and receive feedback on their performance in this area. The effect of the project is verified by monitoring both the AHT statistics from the CRM system, and also the scores from repeated administrations of both questionnaires.

Such programs usually prove to be hard work. Changing habits is not always easy, but the rewards for even a modest reduction in AHT can be quite substantial.

Bookmark and Share

Capture performance through personalized coaching

Jun 23rd, 2011
by Moses Velasco.
No comments yet

Keeping your agents motivated can be one of the toughest challenges for your supervisors and coaches. Managing to keep all of your agents in high spirits and pushing for improved performance can be a juggling act. With today’s latest technologies it is easier to monitor activities and performance across your team also making it easier to skimp on the personal approach needed to ensure agents are mentally motivated. Coaching your agents to better performance doesn’t  always have to be through product knowledge, soft skills improvement, or target setting. Taking the time to understand and know your team through personal one to one sessions is the best way to prevent any potential issues that could cause performances to slip.

Coaching for motivation isn’t as conventional as coaching for performance. This type of coaching urges your supervisors to take the time to get to know the individuals that are working for the center and discovering more about their personalities, likes, dislikes, and hobbies. Closing the personal gap between supervisor and agents can help foster a positive transparent environment. This will lead to enhanced best practices and uncovering personal issues that may hamper an agent’s performance early. Taking the time to check your agent’s personal and mental health should be as important as your business KPIs. We have all seen how one agent’s poor attitude can affect the entire team.

Probing agents on their feelings about campaigns, environments and procedures will help them begin to open up. Asking them for their opinions and suggestions will prove fruitful and lead to agents feeling a sense of contribution and ownership.

Urging your coaches to take suggestions and opinions seriously can benefit best practices uncovering new operational efficiencies. Once agents are feeling comfortable sharing opinions and offering suggestions you will find that they will offer more personal information and a personal approach to work. Agents can offer a lot of insight as they are the ones that are constantly involved in the operational activities. Agents will be more likely to ask for help in areas of concern before their results communicate there is an issue.

Engaging your team at this level and checking their mental health as part of the coaching sessions is highly recommended! Coaches can offer support, help agents to work through their issues, and be a sounding board for their suggestions. Once agents have the platform to get their frustrations off their chest often coaches can move agents to a positive frame of mind alleviating the potential long term dip in performances or affecting their colleagues.

Individuals experience motivation in different ways, whether it is completing tasks, or competing to satisfy their ego or economical situation. People strive to achieve their goals for personal satisfaction and self- improvement while others compete with their surroundings. By understanding agent’s behavior and personal traits this will directly or indirectly affect an organization’s performance.

Bookmark and Share