Objectivity
A primary factor in the success of a monitoring initiative is whether or not the agents are willing to accept it. The problem is, if agents sense any favoritism or subjectivity in the rating of calls and delivery of feedback, the program may be in serious jeopardy. Unfortunately when monitoring and subsequent evaluations are performed using internal resources, the danger of bias, whether perceived or real, is almost always present. It may not be intentional; it is human nature.
Again, outsourcing is a way to circumvent this potential conflict of interest. Outsourcers do not work closely with clients’ agents on a daily basis; this means that they almost never form personal opinions of staff. Consequently, it is far easier for them to objectively evaluate each call based solely on performance criteria and operational metrics.
It should be noted that bias is not completely eliminated when outsourcing call monitoring. The fact is supervisors and team leaders are still providing feedback to agents, frequently adding their own input which may well contain comments based on personal history. However, outsourcing does remove subjectivity from the monitoring process, the place where the greatest potential for such bias resides.
Calibration
It is essential to remove variation in the way performance criteria are interpreted from person-to-person and call-to-call. Like objectivity, consistency is an essential factor not only in how quickly agents accept the call monitoring program but in ensuring that results are valid. Without this, agents are much more prone to doubt the validity of scores and feedback.
In any effective scenario, monitors must hold frequent calibration sessions in which all listen to several recorded calls as a group and discuss why and how they would rate agent performance in each case. In centers where the monitoring function has been outsourced but the clients’ supervisors still conduct occasional observations, center supervisors often participate in calibration sessions with the outsourced company.
Scalability
Few circumstances will negatively affect a quality monitoring program more than rapid growth within the center. While the system may be sufficient at any specific point in time, a sudden rise in volume may place a burden on existing resources that the company simply cannot handle. Further, the additional resources to scale up the program may be unavailable or financially unfeasible.
Such a problem is less likely in an outsourced environment. A third-party company will have the ability to scale up or down to seamlessly meet the fluctuating needs of clients, which can change in the blink of an eye. It’s certainly not practical for a company to invest in new technology or resources to meet a temporary upswing in call volume. Outsourced companies already have these additional resources at their disposal, and can scale them back when and if call volume decreases.
Feedback
Whether the call-monitoring function is kept in-house or outsourced, the feedback from the evaluations is critical in improving agent performance. There are a variety of delivery methods including written reports and online systems.
While some companies prefer to make agent scores available only to supervisors, letting agents see their own scores and results lets them understand instantly where they are and where they are going in terms of quality performance. When agents know where they stand, they are far more likely to do what is necessary to improve. Thus, QM outsourcers ensure that they have time to not only carry out comprehensive call observations but also to deliver meaningful feedback on agent performance within hours.
Reach Joe at joe.caliro@hyperquality.com.
© 2007 Telecom Reseller. All Rights Reserved.