CCSF Online Survey Service Levels October, 2008

Transcription

1 CCSF Online Survey Service Levels October, 2008 Overview As a follow up to the recent conference call on service levels and an interest in the membership to update the survey results on this topic, this CCSF online snapshot survey was designed to investigate the service levels of the participating organizations in relation to their current goals and actuals with an eye towards how this is or is not impacting customer experience. It also examined current approaches in the measurement and accountability for service level consistency meaning, for example, how many 30-minute segments of service level thresholds are met. There were also some questions pertaining to ASA, abandonment and the use of virtual hold and/or call back technology. With that as the background, the following is a summary of the anonymous results of this latest CCSF member online survey. A total of 33 respondents participated in the survey. Their industries are noted below:

2 Industry Number of Respondents of Respondents financial services 10 30% telecommunications 1 3% utility/power 2 6% third party outsourcer 0 0% hospitality/travel/entertainment 2 6% retail/consumer goods 3 9% healthcare and health insurance 6 18% logistics/transportation/industrial 1 3% Government/Public Sector or not-forprofit 1 3% high tech/dot com industry 2 6% Other* 5 15% Total % *Multichannel retail; Consultant; Media Intelligence; Association Management; Education Key Learnings There were a couple of service levels that dominated the answers for the question that asked about target service levels for the phone channel. The most frequently used service level for this group is 80% of calls answered within 20 seconds (23% of respondents answered with this service level). The next most popular service level was 90/20 (10%), followed closely by 80% in 30 seconds (6%). Fortunately for this group, more than half (66%) stated that they are performing well against their stated target. Of that 66%, 38% are on target, 22% are slightly better than target and 6% are significantly better than target. However, it s not all peaches and cream as 31% are performing slightly worse than their set target levels in this channel. The remaining 3% do not require a service level. For this group of respondents, 81% do not outsource any of their call volumes. For the 19% that do outsource their call volume, 66% of them have an overall service level performance and consistency that is monitored and the outsourcer is held accountable. CCSF members have been discussing service level consistency (i.e. the ability to manage to their service levels throughout the day in, for example, 30-minute segments). For this group of survey takers, 79% track service level time segments. Of that 79%, 41%

3 make it a key performance measurement and 38% track it, but do not have a performance measurement in place. Additionally, one respondent mentioned that his/her organization tracks in 15-minute increments and actually manages that hourly. For this group of respondents, the most common target for average speed of answer (ASA) was a tie; 16% responded 30 seconds and another 16% responded 10 seconds. The next most common answer (13% of respondents) was an ASA of 20 seconds. In performance to this target, the predominant proportion is doing well. In total, 59% were performing either on target (34%), slightly better than target (19%) or significantly better than target (6%). Of the remaining respondents, 25% performed slightly worse than target and 3% performed significantly worse than target. The remaining 12% either did not have a target, it was unknown or they did not use ASA as a target. As for abandons in the phone channel, surprisingly, the most common response was that their company did not have a target (19%). The most common target was a tie; 10% replied 5% of calls and 10% replied 3% of calls. The highest mentioned abandon rate was 10% with two respondents using this metric (6%). When asked how these organizations are performing against their stated target, 61% of the respondents are performing well 45% are performing on target, 10% are performing slightly better than target and 6% are performing significantly better than target. Only 23% are performing slightly worse than target and no one is performing significantly worse than target. The remaining 13% falls into the category of not having a target. For this group, 75% do not currently use any virtual hold or call back technology nor do they have plans to in the near term. For those that do use the technology, 10% stated that it works well and they would recommend it. However, another 7% stated that it works somewhat, but they are not sure if they would recommend it. No one replied that it did not work well and that they would not recommend it. (Note: Although it does not significantly change the results, please note that 32 individuals replied to the question of whether or not they use Virtual Hold technology, but only 30 individuals answered for how well it does or does not work for them). Since absenteeism affects service levels (particularly Mondays and Fridays and following holidays), survey participants were asked to describe their strategy for dealing with these absences. Many of the traditional strategies were shared: shifting of staff, overstaffing, outsourcing call volumes on these days, not scheduling meetings or coaching on these days, progressive discipline and required doctor s notes, recognition for good attendance, etc. Amazingly, 2 respondents replied that this is not an issue in their contact centers! Service levels within micro groups are difficult to manage. Therefore, not surprisingly, 12 respondents (43%) replied that they do not have micro groups. For those that do, there was a myriad of responses, mostly centered on cross training and shifting the calls to others to assist when service levels are compromised.

4 For these survey takers, 94% do not correlate their abandons to increased self-service use (i.e. measuring those customers who abandon waiting in queue to use the company s website or other self-service channel). It begs 2 questions. First of all, is this something that can be effectively & accurately tracked? If so, would that still be considered an abandon if the customer went to a self-service channel? The next channel of focus was . For this set of respondents, 19% did not have a service level target for this channel. The next most common response was a service level of 100% answered within 24 hours (16%). These two metrics were the only ones with multiple responses. The rest of the responses were inconsistent and varied. As with the phone channel, participants were asked how their performance fared against these targeted service levels. Fortunately, more than half (66%) are doing well. Of that 66%, 34% are on target, 16% are slightly better than target and (16%) are significantly better than target. Only 12% stated that they are slightly worse than target and the remaining 19% are non-applicable. Overall, the results favor meeting the target in this channel, which is the same for the phone channel. When asked about future plans to manage service levels, again the responses were quite varied without a great deal of consistency, other than various references to using some type of technology (such as workforce management) or looking to a form of virtual or remote agent capabilities. Survey Results 1. For all inbound calls, what is your target for phone service levels? (e.g. 80% of calls answered within 20 seconds or 90% / 30seconds) 7 respondents replied with an 80% in 20 seconds metric 3 respondents replied with a 90% in 20 seconds metric 2 respondents replied with an 80% in 30 seconds metric Other verbatim answers included the following: 90% within 30 sec 75/20 80%, 40 seconds 95% Segmented by customer base: 70% of calls answered within 30 seconds for retails and 90% / 60seconds for Financial Advisers

5 95% of calls answered within 30 seconds 70/30 90% within 30 seconds 5% abandon, +/- 1.5% 75% of calls answered in 60 seconds 95% within 60 seconds 30 second ASA No inbound calls Sales calls - 80% within 20 seconds; service calls - 80% within 30 seconds 80% within 12 seconds 90/10 85% of calls 60 seconds 75/30 80% answered in 60 seconds 2. By the same token, how well is your phone contact performing to your stated service level targets? (please select one response looking at either a YTD or current actual figure) Response Significantly better than target 2 6% Slightly better than target 7 22% On target 12 38% Slightly worse than target 10 31% Significantly worse than target 0 0% Other, please specify* 1 3% *No service level required 3. For any call volumes that are outsourced to 3rd party vendors, how are expectations of phone service levels (e.g. 80/20) monitored and accounted for? (Please select only one)

6 Response N/A - We do not outsource any call 25 81% volumes We do not have performance expectations 0 0% for service levels with our 3rd party operators Overall service level performance is 1 3% monitored, but not interval consistency Overall service level performance and 0 0% consistency is monitored Overall service level performance and 4 13% consistency is monitored and held accountable Other, please specify* 1 3% *Interval and overall performance and consistency 4. More and more, we are seeing organizations track and even manage service level expectations in 30 or 15 minute segments throughout the day - i.e. a service level consistency measurement. Which response best fits your organization s use of this measurement? (Select one or other) Response We track service level time segments, but 12 38% we do not have a performance measurement in place We track service level time segments and 13 41% we do make it a key performance measurement We do not track service levels by time 5 16% intervals of say 30 or 15 minutes Other, please specify* 2 6% *We track in 15 minute increments and manage hourly; No service levels required

7 5. For all inbound calls, what is your target for Average Speed of Answer - ASA? (e.g. 10 seconds) 5 replies for 30 seconds 5 replies for 10 seconds 4 replies for 20 seconds 2 replies for 15 seconds 2 replies for 20 seconds or less Other verbatim answers included the following: Less then 60 seconds I do not track this stat in my role 25 Don t use ASA as a target 30 seconds or less Fault Q only measured - under 40 seconds The sales queue should be 10 seconds or less, the CS and billing queues should be 1 minute or less seconds None 7 seconds Don t use; focus on 80/ How well does your organization perform to your stated ASA target? (please select one response looking at either a YTD or current actual figure)

8 Response Significantly better than target 2 6% Slightly better than target 6 19% On target 11 34% Slightly worse than target 8 25% Significantly worse than target 1 3% Other, please specify* 4 12% *Unknown; don t use ASA as a target; none; not used 7. For all inbound calls, what is your target for abandons? (e.g. 1% of all calls) 6 replies for No target 4 replies for 5% of calls 4 replies for 3% of calls 2 replies for 10% of calls 2 replies for 4% of calls 2 replies for 2.5% of calls 2 replies for 2% of calls 2 replies for <3% of calls 2 replies for <2% of calls Other verbatim answers included the following: I do not track this stat in my role Less then 5% 3-4% 1.5% Less than 1% 8. How well does your organization perform to your stated abandons target? (please select one response looking at either a YTD or current actual figure)

9 Response Significantly better than target 2 6% Slightly better than target 3 10% On target 14 45% Slightly worse than target 7 23% Significantly worse than target 0 0% Other, please specify* 4 13% *Unknown; n/a; no target; none 9. Does your organization use any virtual hold or call back technology or have any near term plans to use these? Response Yes 8 25% No 24 75% Other, please specify 0 0% 10. If your organization does use call back or virtual hold technology, how well does it work for you? Response It works well and I would recommend it 3 10% It works somewhat, but I'm not sure I would 2 7% recommend it It does not work well and I would not 0 0% recommend it We do not use this technology 23 77% Other, please specify* 2 7% *None; we are in the early stages of implementation 11. Briefly describe the strategy used to manage absences on Mondays, Fridays or after holidays when service levels are easily compromised.

10 Shift staff away from outbound calling priorities to inbound Reduce, eliminate load factors for meetings, coaching, etc. Also, proactive attendance management Overstaff on Mondays. Separate teams of people with different responsibilities are cross trained to use as needed. Use staff and mgmt team on a busy day as needed Follow attendance policy, not allowed to make up any hours All positions are cross filled from other service centers, allowing back-filling continuously enterprise-wide Not an issue, believe it or not! We don't need any special policies around this Must have a valid doctor's certificate. All leave is published daily We utilize an outsource facility for overflow, starting earlier on Mondays and Tuesdays Currently have a pool of temporary staff that we can call in. Also we do not roster any meetings or training on Mondays or Fridays We forecast and schedule through easily compromised periods with incentives for perfect attendance and occurrences for agents who call in. We are usually very close on our forecast, however; flu season hit us very hard Progressive discipline attendance policy; max # of agents scheduled off on a daily basis; blackout days on the vacation calendar following holidays We schedule the resources according to our call forecast and typically hit service levels Doctor s note required We use a resume procedure for absences; people on sick leave need to advise of their intention to return to work in advance; casual & on call employees fill in the gaps We have overflow skill sets built into the structure so we can route calls to available resources across North America Coaching reps with such attendance issues on a monthly or as needed basis This hasn't been an issue for us N/a We have an expanding boc (sic) strategy that expands the number of available people to answer Flexible "on call team", use of training, quality, cancel training - proactive forecasting to overstaff in anticipation of issues We have approved means for taking time off, some paid, some unpaid. We hold agents accountable for unapproved time off with disciplinary action Our sites will institute various encouragement activities on critical days (i.e. lunch, raffles, etc.). But, for the most part it's about making sure the person knows they were missed and following corrective action processes

11 Over scheduling Through an HR program to address absenteeism Coaching on frequency of Monday/Friday absences; recognition awards for good attendance We have and telephone volume, for high absenteeism we move all agents to the telephone and offer OT to support or borrow resources from other areas Casual absence is closely monitored by the supervisors and if it is becoming a trend we request a doctor s note by the 3rd occurrence Absence patterns exceeding dependability guidelines are dealt with through a consistent performance management process We offer flex schedules Within guidelines set by HR, absences for these days will be held against employees 12. Briefly, please describe the strategy used to manage service levels within your organization s micro groups, i.e. small groups of 3-4 agents whereby the absence of one agent can be extremely detrimental to service levels. 12 respondents answered that this question does not apply, i.e. they do not have micro groups or groups that small. Of this 12, one offered that they do recognize that one absentee can affect service levels. We usually forecast to the possibility of an unusual amount of absenteeism. Another suggestion brought forward from this group of 12 was to oversize the group with cross-training and blend other calls into those groups as they have availability. Use a dedicated work flow analyst who makes intra-day assignment changes based on volumes Lending agents from one queue to another Group small groups together, cross train, and make a larger group Held to the same standards as the national average. Designated leads with a managing supervisor post hourly statistics on screen and on white boards. There is a team goal & individual standards to ensure consistent support Vacation control -- no more than 1 agent approved off at any time Multi skilling as much as possible We have a subset of agents dedicated to a specific call type and priority call status for some phone lines

12 We place less emphasis on service levels in our micro groups, but we also allow calls going into a micro group to roll over into a larger pool of generalists We cross-train staff, enabling us to plug in resources where we need them Cross training to generalize support groups Cross trained backups from larger teams We may cross-train other agents to be fully functional in another area to support absenteeism or we may train them to act as 'reception' for another team, or we may use voic to capture missed calls Overflow the calls to another department We have cross-trained our micro group agents - if someone is out, there is always back up available from a larger group We cross-train other resources to support the group We have groups which handle specific calls but in turn they are cross trained to be able to handle other skills as well. Therefore in a situation of an absence we can request their assistance 13. Does your company correlate abandons to increased self-service use? In other words, measuring those customers who abandon waiting in queue to use the company s website or other self-service channel? Response Yes 2 6% No 30 94% 14. If you answered yes to the above question re: correlating abandoned calls to increased self-service use, please briefly describe your process for measurement. There is usually no waiting on the company website or self service channel. However, customers do have the ability to transfer to a live agent from the automated system. These calls are put to the top of the queue Mention web options and services available during hold time; also give estimated wait times

13 15. For all customer contacts, what is your service level target? (e.g. 90% / 24 hours) 6 replies for n/a 5 replies for 100% within 24 hours 100%/3 business hours No current standards 80% in 24 hours 100% within 3 business days 100% within 48 hours Peak season is 90% / 48 hours; slow season is 100% / 24 hours 100% in four hours or less 90% in one day Within 48 hours 90% in 24 hours 100% in 12 hours 90% within 2 hours 85% within 6 hours 85% w/in 24 hours 48 hours 90% in 4 hours 100% in 72 hours 90% 24 hours 24 hours, max prior to two business days 90% / 24 hours 16. For your service levels, how well does your organization perform to target? (please select one response looking at a YTD or current actual figure)

14 Response Significantly better than target 5 16% Slightly better than target 5 16% On target 11 34% Slightly worse than target 4 12% Significantly worse than target 0 0% Other, please specify* 6 19% *N/a; n/a; n/a; n/a customers don t send us requests; n/a; n/a extremely small volumes 17. Finally, please briefly share any additional initiatives or projects your organization is currently undertaking (or plans to engage in the near term) around managing service level consistency (including any staffing solutions), ASA and abandons for the phone and/or contacts? Ensuring appropriate staffing is in place to meet language needs. Developing and implementing call time standards for language needs (i.e. takes longer for Spanish language call customarily back-filling positions with adjacent areas Early discussions about initiative to use "IP Agent" to bring 8 centers into 1 virtual center. This will better utilize our resources for improving service level KPI is now set at number of days achieved in the year as opposed to number of months in a year to ensure consistency Increased usage of temp staff and decrease permanent pool to cover hotspots We are currently looking for upgrades on our forecasting and scheduling system, an upgrade on our automated system, continuous improvements on our web page and looking at our best options for staffing for peak season Using workforce management software; exploring more labor flexing options We are installing a new application to manage and track flow of all client interactions (phone, fax, live chat). We will also have remote agent capability, which will allow staff to be part of the contact center from anywhere with access to the Internet Increasing virtual routing across regions; new IVR platform, including full Spanish, to increase automation Correlate service levels with customer satisfaction results

15 None at this time Creating specialized teams to handle some types of Next Issue Avoidance We are exploring purchasing a tool to measure agent compliance to their schedule Customer Engagement efforts; sales referral lead program Agent scheduling based on agent quality scores Working with IT to establish call-typing within the phone system; survey opportunities at the end of the call