As you may know, Nexidia sponsors the P&Q Campaign. This is an industry wide effort to identify and share next generation best practices in Performance Management and Quality Monitoring. In today’s post I want to draw on some the insights so far generated and then explain the importance of using Interaction Analytics as a catalyst to evolve your own quality programme.
The Limitations Of A Compliance Driven Approach To Quality
One of the first things the P&Q campaign undertook was a survey. Based on 180 responses, from a wide range of industries and contact centre sizes, one of the most striking facts was that compliance management (external regulation) is part of the performance and quality programme for three quarters of respondents.
This is therefore a fact of life for the majority of UK contact centres. As customers, we have all experienced that part of the conversation when the advisor reels off a number of statements parrot fashion to ensure compliance.
But to what degree does that really work as originally intended?
Maybe the Financial Services Authority’s (FSA) latest edict to the industry reflects how ineffective this approach has really been. Soon organisations will need to provide evidence that customers have also ‘understood’ what they are being offered. How the UK industry responds to this new compliance challenge remains to be seen.
However, the existing regime has left its mark on quality management. For many, it has become a tick box exercise based on internal concerns with meeting these regulatory standards. In the worst cases, it has dominated the evaluation process. Either way, it has diminished the scope of the quality agenda.
How The Quality Agenda Is Evolving
Interestingly, a common theme that has come back from both the survey and the P&Q roadshow is the strong desire to introduce a more external view of what quality means. In other words, the customer’s experience needs to become a key input.
Given that, it becomes even more important to know that the quality monitoring process is able to represent an accurate view of the customer feedback. In other words, distinguish between isolated and commonly held views.
Unfortunately, one of the great frustrations with current practice is how time consuming and ineffective the whole process can be. For instance, the sample size that most organisations can afford simply cannot be considered an effective net with which to trap all important quality insights. Too much inevitably passes through unnoticed.
Even if this meets current FSA expectations (and as I previously mentioned, they are showing an appetite for more effective approaches), it cannot satisfy anyone’s broader Quality agenda. How can you effectively respond to Quality issues when so much is being missed?
Interaction Anaytics offers a better methodology. It starts from 100% of interactions and then organises them and makes them available for targeted listening and coaching as opposed to the old method which relies on sampling and random call selection
Maybe The Tick Box Approach Goes Altogether
Of course some organisations might choose a more radical evolutionary path and directly plug the advisors into the assessment process. There is already evidence that this is culturally possible.
Motability (a UK charity that helps disabled people get mobile) is a well promoted case study for both members of the Professional Planning Forum and the P&Q Campaign. Their pioneering work with customer advisors has created a unique approach to behavioural change. Advisors self-select issues to work on with their team leaders that have arisen from their own customer interactions. Ownership and willingness to learn become the key benefits of this approach.
The Motability approach also cracks another issue that has been discussed in the P&Q campaign. How to move on from the formulaic approach of sampling all advisors to the same degree? In their case, it was solved by trusting the advisors to bring the relevant examples to light.
However that won’t work for everyone. Nonetheless there is an emerging consensus that however the evaluation process is triggered it should be based on individual development needs rather than tick box approach. Obviously, this is a far more effective way of concentrating limited resources in order to have a positive impact.
Interaction Analytics gives companies the ability to use 100% of an agent’s interactions. Thereby, they’re gaining a true perspective of their performance. And because they’re able to categorize calls based on type and score based on user defined metrics, they can easily see what call types an agent struggles with.
This allows them to deliver targeted coaching in the areas the agent needs it most, versus delivering a blanket “one size fits all” approach for all the agents. And because Interaction Analytics does the heavy lifting for them, this is feasible for coaches to do because they aren’t spending their time hunting for appropriate calls or figuring out how to scale this across the enterprise
Key Take Away
There is an industry wide determination to evolve the way quality management happens. It is becoming more scalable, selective and inclusive of the customer viewpoint. Interaction Analytics is needed to power that new capability.