rajsuds

Well, going by the Deming view of the process being majorly reponsible for defects... The agent's job is to follow instructions - no matter how much you stress on the fact that he has been given the freedom and the training to take judgement based decissions. His core job is not to foresee the possibility of errors at the root level. If we think regular floor updates, audits, refresher sessions 'must' eliminate errors, we are living in a utopian world.Let's not even talk about how agents 'should' involve themselves at work. 1. When you list your errors and rate them in terms of impact - money wise, CSAT wise, SLA wise... (I understand all are fatal, but there is some grade to each) - start implementing system controls which force the user to check on the details but also has an overide function (like Change price plan) . 2. Before you create a process flow for any call driver, foresee possible fatal errors and implement temporary floor control - agent should summon a floor walker etc. 3. Again, the most ffective method : monitor & feedback. All processes have an initial period when familiarity is low. At the end of every day - allot a team of back office people, to pick up SOs, cases for the particular call type - for eye-balling. (Of course, some errors will never be caught due to incorrect case types etc.). Have any incorrect process followed like wrong case types, order dates, incorrect info flagged off as a report to be discussed in review meets. If you drive this carefully for the first month and new hire batches - 95% of your work is done. Last but not the least, I am sure your organisation has this kind of structure... but implementation is the key to any solution. Regards S.

Hello Sree, The most important thing you must start with, while re-designing is to understand the basic parameters affecting your CSAT... If you have an extrenal CSAT measure - An IVR or a third party assessment, the parameters should be callibrated. 1. The cascading effect is an old thing which such forms - for example, how do you define 'ownership' - following the troubleshooter on the knowledge base, or being able to go a step further in deciding that the troubleshooter followed is insufficient and the query needs to be escalated or the resolution itself? 2. Again, the knowledge level of your advisor is an extremely subjective thing here - if it is a tenured advisor you're dealing with , are you expecting enough of him? The answer is not to breakdown such parameters. The answer is to make this a 'rating' rather than a binary marking - Yes, No. , i.e. , if you find it difficult to narrow down on the root cause of the 'ownership not taken' - skill/will? The key is to define ratings - specifically aligned to behavior... (am sure a couple of callib sessions among QAs should get you the idea!) 0 - Solution available but not rendered (basics) 1 - Incomplete information (could be same as accuracy of info) 2- Troubleshooter followed and necessary steps taken. 3- Issue resolved though beyond troubleshooter/explained well 4 - Ensured avoidance of recurrence. Dunno if you guys have a 1-5 scale, but a zero marking will ensure the agent doesn't even get 'grace marks'... If ownership in your contact center is defined as 'resolution' (Wow!), and you also have different types of resolution (Case raised to correct department, Case closed, Follow up call made/ closed, Service Order raised etc) - you could break it down accordingly. It'll make sense not to go by VOC, because they are very generic... however, if you have been following an IVR script which captures Resolution rates, and you have a further drill down of how many times the customer has called back, you could take that as a further support to the rating... But, of course, the process is more complex - to pull out such info for every call you monitor... :| Hope this helps... Am not sure if I have been able to write legible... Best of luck!

2 ways of looking at it... 1. The SOP or for that matter the SOW will always have a clear CSAT alignment, considering there will be measures for both - specific to this process that you have centered on. Your accountability ideally ends there. Your process's CSAT measures must have a clear definition/demarcation among people, process or policy impacted scores. 2. Again, if you are not strategic partners - not a captive let's say, you can't really do more than just escalating this to your client and laying an ad hoc corrective procedure to be applied to these affected % of calls. You could offer to capture specifics and arrange a call back/transfer to a resolution or grievances team who will flag it off (collate and send) and follow up with may be the third party which is dealing with the actual activity of measurement. (Gets you some brownies and opportunity to sell add on services to the client!!). This also helps freeing up the incoming lines and thereby not affecting your SLAs - ASA, SL%, AHT etc... On the other hand, if you are a captive this becomes easier if the big guys onshore are willing to support you. Thanks!