Do you want to know if internal quality monitoring (iQM) scores help you to answer, what was the customer experience? You are continuously asked how well the contact center is serving the customer – how well is service delivered to customers who call to resolve a problem or to ask a question? In many contact centers, they rely on a summary of operational metrics with the assumption that certain metric levels answers this critical question. You most often rely on internal quality monitoring (iQM) scores to answer the question.
If your iQM is like most, you have to conclude that most customers are extremely satisfied by the telephonic service experience. Scores naturally migrate to the upper part of the iQM scoring scale. If you have 100 points available, the majority of your scores are probably 92 or higher, or even 95 and higher – essentially you use the top 10 points on the scale.
When attempting to answer the service quality question, basing such an important assessment on iQM when it has the bias mentioned above diminishes the effectiveness of the response. All other departments within your organization can report on success with numbers that are not questioned. The contact center needs such a response – one that is accepted as valid unlike the internal quality monitoring results.
Let’s review your iQM program and begin the evolution toward providing a better answer. Who is doing the monitoring? Avoid the fox guarding the chicken coop. What items are scored? It’s best to focus your monitoring form on objective issues related to call control, providing the correct response, and effective relationship building criteria. Why shouldn’t the iQM form include customer subjective assessments? Guessing at how the customer perceived the experience is not accurate and contributes to the inflation of the internal quality monitoring scores.
The customer is the best one to answer how their experience went. From a scientific standpoint you should immediately assess the level of service delivered on a particular call. This is External Quality Monitoring (eQM). While this rating appears to be subjective because it is not a hard metric such as ASA or an internal monitoring score related to the effectiveness of the response from the company’s perspective, the customers’ perceptions are the reality that we must deal with in contact centers. If your customers are not satisfied all of those metrics are meaningless. But yet, if you know how the customer graded the call and you have a good set of metrics and iQM scores, the answer of how well your center is performing becomes balanced and valid.
Customer Relationship Metrics conducted a research project that provides proof that iQM scores do not equal the callers’ evaluation of the service experience. The iQM form included 17 items, seven of which could be directly compared to the caller evaluations. We examined the iQM and eQM scores over a five-month period. As presented in the table above, there was virtually no relationship at all between the caller evaluation of the experience with the eQM program and the iQM scores. The only statistically significant relationship was related to perceived interest in helping and tone, and this was not a strong relationship.
The results of this research had a dramatic effect on the Quality Assurance Program. The proof from the customers’ perspective that the iQM form was not effective underscored the need to have a valid answer to how well service was delivered. In addition to a better answer, a significant savings was now possible. The original iQM program included 17 items scored per call, 5 per month for 2000 agents. This equated to 170,000 scores given per month, with 4 completed per hour, taking 2,500 hours (not including the feedback time). To complete 2,500 hours of scoring, 17 FTE were used at $45,000 per year for a grand total of $765,000 (again, without feedback and coaching time).
With the results of this research, the iQM form was revamped to focus on objective measures. Scoring eight items allowed six to be completed per hour, requiring 12 FTEs at $45,000 per year for a net personnel cost of $540,000. The improvement in the process yielded a savings of $225,000. Your own situation may be on a smaller scale, however the relationship of the direct benefit would apply. Savings from the actual time spent on scoring is compounded by the result of having a more effective definition of quality. Your three part answer needs to include: 1. Call Metrics, 2. Internal Quality Monitoring, and 3. External Quality Monitoring (An Immediate Evaluation by the caller regarding the call combined with Survey Calibration).
- What can contact centers learn from Tom Brady’s balls? - May 13, 2015
- Customer Service Leaders are Ready to Invest in these Solutions - April 30, 2015
- 5 Ways to Show Customers Love and Get it in Return - February 12, 2015
- Unearthing Time to Coach Contact Center Agents - January 28, 2015
- How to Improve Agent Performance without the Ding - January 21, 2015
- How to Implement a Lean Quality Assurance Program - January 1, 2015
- Why FCR is more powerful than a genie in a bottle - December 22, 2014
- Contact Center Budget Wars: New Armor to Defend Against Cuts - October 16, 2014
- Neither Qualitative NOR Quantitative VoC Data Works - October 6, 2014
- Quality investments are like Granite Countertops - July 24, 2014