questionnaires

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

“Because I said so!” A few tips on defining standards.

Aug 24th, 2011
by Liam Anderson.
No comments yet

How many times has a child asked “why?” and received the answer “Because I said so!”?

When contact center staff ask their managers the same question, they expect a more comprehensive explanation. This is especially true when their team leader has just told them that their calls are of poor quality.

To give a comprehensive answer, the contact center needs comprehensive quality standards. There are many contact centers which have questionnaires that rate product knowledge as “Good”, “Average” or “Poor”. Others give points scores out of 5 or 10. There is no explanation of what these grades mean.

In the education world, language examination boards have faced the same problem for many years. Their solution is to give their examiners precisely worded descriptions of the performance that would earn candidates a specific score.

A maximum score for product knowledge might be given when the agent’s performance matches the following description: “The agent gave the customer a complete and fully effective solution to his issue. The agent fully anticipated the customer’s additional needs and gave solutions to these as well.” The lowest score might be for the following: “The agent’s solution did not provide a solution to any part of the customer’s issue. The agent did not anticipate any further needs that the customer might have.” Various bands could be created in between these 2 extremes with scores given accordingly.

With such descriptions, the agents can then be told their score, shown the description and invited to listen to the recorded call themselves and in this way understand why the evaluation was made and what they need to do to improve.

That is quality management that works.

Bookmark and Share