a thoughtful web.
Share good ideas and conversation.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by _refugee_

Accuracy.

You're talking about efficiency, and yes, it's hard to beat efficiency as a core metric in any company's immediate focus. I've been doin' me some larnin' about process and the other factor they talk about is "effectiveness," which you could also look at as "accuracy," in some way.

That's what QAs in call centers are designed to measure. QA is unfortunately a lot more subjective than time-based metrics though. Just what I've seen from being on the other side of the QA. Managers will argue about what is a QA error or isn't, and because a bad QA score can impact an associate just like a poor call time but the manager can maybe change the QA score if they talk loud enough, those managers actually see arguing against QA scores as a victory, a positive thing they are doing for their associates. They lose sight of the big picture because they see short term penalties.

You need good upper management (like, above the managers in the call center) who accept certain rates of failure. It all comes down to good management, I guess. You need upper managers who care about quality. Which I think comes from a good work culture that is deliberately fashioned.

I don't know, just typing out loud here. I legit have been in on those QA meetings in call centers where they are arguing everything they can down, no matter how wrong it was for that action to have been taken. I will say that





_refugee_  ·  60 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I guess really, in thinking back, it's efficiency (cycle time) / effectiveness / customer satisfaction, in terms of the big 3 ways you can measure performance