Scheduling Adherence Challenges and Smart Practices August 30th, :00-5:00pm (EDT)

Transcription

1 Scheduling Adherence Challenges and Smart Practices August 30th, :00-5:00pm (EDT) Overview Scheduling adherence is right up there with attendance as one of the management issues that impart a particularly troublesome challenge in the contact center arena. Fortunately, there are smart practices that make these challenges more manageable and participants on this call were acquainted with 8 practices employed by the affiliated organizations. The venerable incentive debate was also introduced and discussed, although for these specific organizations, it is not widely used as a means to incent agents to adhere to their schedules. This infers that it is more a condition of employment, i.e. an expectation that is tied into performance reviews. A few organizations on this call are also using real-time adherence tools and were able to lend their insights as to its effectiveness. The conference call participants included: Leann Bailey, American Electric Power Dennis Dean, Apple Adam Spoor, Apple Kimberly Graham, Cardinal Health Lonny Gorban, Dell Louise Andrew, Fairmont Hotels & Resorts Suzanne Figueirado, ING Direct Heather Kelly, Nisource Ann Hecker, Northwestel Kiersten Dempster, Pizza Pizza Kristine Maybrey, Pizza Pizza

2 Maagen Thompson, Wells Fargo Consumer Credit Group Tom, Wells Fargo Consumer Credit Group Zack, Wells Fargo Consumer Credit Group Mark Griffith, Zions Bank Victor Wesolowski, Zions Bank Scott Rennie of Rennie Research Group moderated the call. Key Learnings This section explores the key objectives of the call, namely to identify the problem(s), suggest potential solutions, explore the lessons learned and examine what could have been done differently. 1. What is the Problem? What are some scheduling adherence smart practices used by the participants on this call? 2. What are the potential solutions? Eight smart practices were identified: i) Use of a workforce management tool and tying adherence to a performance metric; One organization is in the midst of implementing the Aspect Workforce Management (WFM) tool in his center with the intent to make adherence a metric that the agent will now be measured against in his/her performance. Previously, they simply used a log in/log out report and this new tool will offer much more information and the ability to track agent adherence; Another participant is using a similar process. In the past, they were able to track if their agents arrived late, but that was about it. Now with the new WFM software, they are also making adherence part of the condition of employment, i.e. adherence to breaks and other things scheduled within a shift. It will also show up as a performance type metric because other things factor into it. Adherence is tied to an incentive. The challenge with

3 the introduction of this new software is getting the agents used to it. They seem to go from one extreme to another, i.e. either take too much break time or they are not taking breaks or lunches. For this participant, she feels that it is because before they got the software, it was perceived that the agent s metrics were all tied to phone time. So, they naturally figured that the more that they were on the phone, the better their metrics would be. However, it hurts the center to have agents on the phone when they should be on a scheduled absence because the body count is in place for that specified time. If the agent decides to take a break at a later or earlier time, as an example, service level is affected because the body count might not be scheduled for that time. ii) Use of a workforce management tool, but without tying it to a performance metric; For this participant, they have had the e-wfm real-time adherence module for quite some time. However, what they do differently is that they do not use a metric for adherence per se. They have a WFM team that monitors adherence live and if they see that someone is out of adherence, those instances are reported to that particular agent s team leader. They, in turn with their own tracking, watch for a pattern. If it is a repeat pattern, it is addressed and it could become a disciplinary issue on a case-by-case basis. However, it is not tied to any type of scorecard at this point. This center does not have a huge adherence issue. They are just one off instances, which is why they decided not to include it as a metric on the scorecard. Tardiness is included. They do experience occurrences when an agent is unable to leave for a break or lunch due to a call, but that is excused. Should that happen, the agent simply takes their full break from the time that they are off the phone and still continues with his/her full break. The agent will let the WFM team know that this has happened and they will change the break time on the schedule. Long and short of it, if the agent takes a longer break than entitled, it is an adherence challenge. If it has to do with timing, they are not penalized; Some participants questioned this practice, wondering how often the schedules had to be adjusted. The response was that it is manageable. They do not have a metric that measures overall adherence for the day and if they did, it would make this method less effective. However, overall, the scheduling is accurate for the adjusted occurrences. iii) Managing real-time exceptions in order to be effective with capacity planning;

4 Contrary to what was just described in point 2, another organization stated that they are about to make a change in that they will not be chasing real-time exceptions. The reason behind this train of thought is that chasing real-time exceptions is going to understate the actual schedule adherence in the system, which will cause the center to understate shrinkage and under plan capacity. If people are getting caught on long calls and not taking their break or taking it at a different time, that is the reality on the floor. They want to capture that in their scheduling and planning. If they adjust the schedules after the fact, it looks like they don t have a problem when, in fact, they do; As further described by this same participant, they are in the process of revamping to improve their current process. Their focus on adherence has not been as strong as it could or should have been in the past. So, they are about to implement new reports and tools, all based on e-wfm. They will have a heightened awareness, including education. One of the things that managers may not fully appreciate or even know (because no one has ever told them) is that one or two agents off the phone can make a huge difference to the service level. To them, letting someone take a break a little earlier or later is not big deal, not realizing that one or two people can swing service levels 5% or 10% (the proverbial power of one). They do not want to make it part of a bonus incentive or scorecard yet because it is still new. For now, they will enforce accountability through management actions and lots of visibility. Furthermore, if they are capturing schedule adherence to reflect reality (such as the long calls), they must also recognize that sometimes they do tell agents not to follow their schedules for real capacity reasons. If the calls are light, they will be taken off the phones and vice versa. All in all, this participant does not want to start chasing and scrubbing numbers in order to decide which exception is good or bad, what is within the agent s control or not. That could take a whole team to do that and does not reflect their overall objective. iv) Utilizing an adherence report for start and end of day and all the main components within the day;

5 Another method is to not necessarily monitor adherence to breaks or lunches, but to implement an adherence report for the start and end of the day, as well as the main components of it. This participant is using their Symposium system real-time. They have someone who manages and monitors it. That makes them visible on the floor for whenever someone is out of adherence or in not ready mode, etc. As for reporting, they are using the log in and log out procedure. Log in is when the agent actually goes live, not just simply logging in. v) Applying a strict adherence policy as a condition of employment; As shared by this organization, the nature of their business requires that they maintain a strict adherence policy as a condition of employment. When the call volume hits, the agent needs to be on the phones for specific periods of time. It is integrated as part of the scorecard and managed by the team leaders. If there is an issue, it is addressed at the team leader level. The condition of employment is contingent on the situation. It is a low tolerance policy. Agents are required predominantly on the weekend and these scheduled times are not negotiable. If there is a tardy, the discipline would depend on the cause, but it is generally a low tolerance. That s in-house. This organization also manages an outsourcer and they also have adherence to schedule scorecards. There is a financial impact built in if the agents are not meeting 97% of their adherence to schedule. They also have home agents, but it is a small group. They are under the legislation of a collective agreement and it has a very rigid control on schedule adherence. The tolerance level is very, very low for them; The tool used is similar to what has been mentioned. Agents are expected to log into the system at the beginning of their shift and breaks are monitored. The home agents have a specific queue, so the organization can monitor that they are, in fact, taking calls when they are logged in. vi) Employing adherence as part of a gating mechanism or pre-qualifier for earning bonus;

6 One organization elucidated that they have a monthly target for associates that acts as a pre-qualifier for their bonus payments. These payments are paid at the end of the month and quarterly. It is also a performance issue in that if an agent repeatedly did not make their bonus, employment could be terminated. Schedule adherence is one of the minimum qualifiers; Another participant also shared that they use schedule adherence as a gatekeeper. The agent must meet a minimum threshold to receive their monthly incentive; For the participant that used this type of process in his previous employment, adherence was part of the scorecard and factored in as a large percentage, right underneath quality. An agent would make certain to meet those 2 metrics, quality and schedule adherence, in order to receive their bonus; Another organization stated that in order to qualify for an incentive, the agent has to meet quality, adherence and the minimum targets; All in all, no one on this call is incenting for adherence. Instead, it is part of the scorecard tied into a bonus. vii) Managing real-time adherence using a combination approach between team leads and operations; There are a couple of schools of thought on who should manage the real-time adherence should it be the team leads and supervisors of the agents or the operations/wfm team? In one member s experience, the best approach is a combination of both. If one group is responsible for it all the time, they are perceived as the bad guys. Also, agents become accustomed to who they need to avoid so as not to get caught out of adherence; Adding to this, another participant mentioned that her organization is successful using this combination approach. They empower their team leaders and supervisors to be on the floor real-time and managing it. They have an understanding that they are responsible for the entire group. When they are on shift, everyone reports to them and they are in constant communication with their command center from a queue perspective to direct agents on to the phone, especially if they notice that the agent could potentially go over on breaks, etc. If so, they are ushered back to their seat as quickly as possible. As well, each team leader has a group of people for which they are directly responsible. If

7 there are trends that are recorded, even over-use of the not ready button, the issue can be dealt with on a one-on-one basis; Corroborating this theory, another participant stated that when they were using just the WFM group to monitor adherence and get agents back on the phone, this group was definitely perceived negatively. However, when they balanced the responsibility between WFM and the supervisors to work on monitoring schedule adherence together, it took the pressure off of the WFM group; Another practice employed by one organization on the call is to rotate supervisors through what they call a manager on duty cycle. For 2 hours of the day they work with the team lead. One person will watch the queue and the other person walks the floor with a walkie-talkie approaching those people that are too long in one segment. Success depends on the manner in which the agent is approached so that the person doing the monitoring doesn t always come across as the bad guy. viii) Managing real-time adherence collectively with the inclusion of agents in order to create buy-in for the real-time adherence practice; This was a novel practice brought forward by one participant. His organization has a queue management process in place that is similar to what has been described above. However, it is two- fold. They have an operations group that is watching from a high-level queue to monitor all of their sites. Additionally, in each site they have what they call a queue manager. That is staffed by a rotation of agents and supervisors throughout the day. Everyone in the center is buying into the idea of watching the queues and monitoring the activity. If an agent is out of adherence or if they are over-using the after call work segment, they start calling and getting the agents back on the phones. This has worked very well for agent buy-in because they are looking at it from a totally different perspective and seeing the impact on the business when an agent or agents are out of adherence. This has really helped with the buy-in of the whole concept; To put this in context, this participant is not in a union shop. Another individual added that they are unionized and this wouldn t work for them because in their agreement, one peer cannot tell another what to do. 3. What were the lessons learned?

8 As explained by one participant who did use incentives to encourage adherence in his former employment, his experience was positive and the incentive beneficial. The enthusiasm of those who were gung ho about getting those bonuses spread throughout the center. They were rewarded for doing something that they wanted and were only penalized when an issue became a performance concern. In the experience of these organizations on the call that employ home agents, there isn t generally a problem with schedule adherence. Participants discussed what they considered to be an out of adherence event: A) for one organization, they offer a 3-minute grace period at the beginning of the agent s shift. Aside from that, there are no other grace periods; B) on the other end of the spectrum is a zero tolerance policy explained by another participant. The agent is not docked pay, however, until the 8-minute mark. It is included on their performance scorecard if they are 1, 2 or 3 minutes late and if it continues, it is addressed as a performance issue; C) another event was described as a 2-minute grace period from the start of the agent s shift, as well as returning late form breaks. That is measured on a daily basis and if there is a trend, it becomes a disciplinary issue. Pay is not docked at any point; D) yet another method explained was to take the total minutes scheduled for the day and measure the adherence for the whole day. The agent is given a plus or minus 8-minute grace period. This does not mean that an agent can take their break or lunch at a different time other than what was scheduled; E) last but not least, one company is taking a much more hardline approach to this and managing it interval-by-interval in the call center. They don t want to look at it from a total minutes point of view because they want people to be on the phones meeting service levels when they are scheduled to do so based on the schedules from e-wfm. Beyond just breaks and start times, another factor for adherence during the day is scheduled meetings and training. Participants offered the following: A) if an agent is scheduled for a meeting and they are late, it will be triggered by the system in the form of a warning bell. This allows the person managing adherence to seek out the reason behind the delay in returning from the meeting. This and any other type of scheduled activity that goes beyond its allotted time shows as non-adherence; B) as shared by another participant, they are moving in that direction also. Right now, they have a 5- minute window for log in and log out. Then they look at total minutes. However, this participant agrees that they need to begin looking at this right down to the event level. They do have real-time adherence in their Aspect WFM that is monitored by a command

9 center who watches the queues during the day; C) a third scenario described was to also use real-time management and if the agent has training on that day, it gets factored into their allowance in terms of how many minutes they are allowed to be off the phone. If the target is 94% for the month, on a regular work day, that works out to about 20 minutes of leeway. So, if they are in training for 7 out of 8 hours of the total shift, then it would work out to 3.5 minutes for that day. Getting agents involved in the monitoring of schedule adherence really helps with buy-in because they see it from a totally different perspective. 4. What would you do differently? As shared by one participant, when they were using just the WFM group to monitor adherence and get agents back on the phone, this group was definitely perceived negatively. However, when they balanced the responsibility between WFM and the supervisors to work on monitoring schedule adherence together, it took the pressure off of the WFM group. Two other participants agreed that the best way to handle this is jointly. Additional Insights 1. In the US, there is legislation for outsourcers called co-employment. It dictates how closely an organization can tell their outsourcers what they can and can t do. Something as direct as measuring scheduling adherence might be an infringement on that law. 2. Two participants who use the Aspect RTA (real-time adherence) system discussed its pros and cons. One participant has had this in place for the past 11 years quite successfully. As a matter of fact, they have recently upgraded to the most current version. They have not had any issues whatsoever with the technology or the RTA piece. However, they have had trouble with the productivity module piece. This is likely because the productivity piece is tied into their CTI technology and this is causing some issues with the data flow back and forth. The other participant shared that they, too, are finding the same challenge.