• Save
Approach to Quality and Customer Experience
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Approach to Quality and Customer Experience

on

  • 1,325 views

Aegis - Approach to Quality and Customer Experience

Aegis - Approach to Quality and Customer Experience
Industry Leading Solution; Global Quality & Customer Experience

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,325
Views on SlideShare
1,296
Embed Views
29

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

4 Embeds 29

http://www.ccmg.org.za 19
http://ccmg.org.za 6
http://dynamic.icecreamlovestheweb.com 3
http://www.slashdocs.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Purpose:To reinforce the importance of End-User Satisfaction SurveysTo define Top Two Box and Bottom Box results Facilitator Suggestions:COPC recommends using a 5-point scale with a neutral midpoint, just as with Client Satisfaction SurveysIn addition to the concept of Top Two Box (reviewed in the previous Item), COPC also measures “Bottom Box”Bottom Box = the box on a survey that represents the lowest satisfaction/agreement with the question being askedWhen used as a metric it typically refers to the percentage of the respondents who selected the box in response to the question
  • Purpose:To remind participants of the COPC® High Performance BenchmarksTo introduce the Top Box referenceFacilitator Suggestions:Review the benchmarks with participantsClick to highlight the Top Box or Loyalty resultWith 85% Top Two Box, generally the Top Box performance will be 45% to 50% for most CSPs, with high performance CSPs achieving Top Box results of 60%
  • This chart represents something called the Kano ModelThe Kano model is a theory of product development and customer satisfaction developed in the 80s by Professor Noriaki Kano which classifies customer preferences. These categories have been translated into English using various different names (delighters/exciters, satisfiers, dissatisfiers, etc.), but all refer to the original articles written by Kano.Note that when you do more of the satisfiers, you will be able to achieve all the way to “Delight”However with the dissatisfiers, you can only ever get to “neutral” and not doing enough to hit the minimum level or sweet spot will lead to dissatisfaction.What are examples of a satisfier? (accuracy, issue resolution)What re examples of a dissatisfier? (speed of answer, professionalism)
  • The approach we are implementing at Aegis is the approach developed by COPC Inc. called Quality Process Optimization™ (QPO)It is very different from the approach that most call centers useBut, most call centers get very little from their quality programsThe COPC Inc. approach is focused on: Giving the client and operations an accurate view of the businessLeveraging the call center to provide insights into the businessDriving improvements in C-Sat, Sales (where appropriate), Cost, and ComplianceWe have successfully implemented this approach at Aegis across multiple geographies over the past 9 monthsIncluding well known companies such as Mercedes Benz, AMEX, General Motors, etc. (see next slide for a more comprehensive list)The examples you will see are disguised from Aegis clients
  • COPC Inc. recommends that tracking errors by these 3 types is much more important than tracking by:Controllable vs. Uncontrollable My department’s “fault” vs not my department’s “fault”

Approach to Quality and Customer Experience Approach to Quality and Customer Experience Presentation Transcript

  • Aegis Approach to Qualityand Customer ExperienceIndustry Leading SolutionGlobal Quality & Customer ExperienceNovember 2012 Any time. Any place. Any process.
  • My Experience• 15 years experience in the call centre industry• Worked with 4 of the largest outsourcers. – I have worked across most industries and supported both local and international business – All involved reviewing the methodology for measuring quality and CSAT performance results.• 1 year with Aegis working with the President Global Quality and Customer Experience and co-founder of COPC – who conducted assessments of 400 contact centers across 30 countries all of included review of their methodology for measuring and the performance results for the Customer Experience. – 100 clients and 150 programs across 8 countries in Aegis
  • The Issue ―80% of company executives surveyed believe their company was providing a ‗superior experience‘ to their customers. Actual customers surveyed about their perceptions, rated only 8% of those companies as ‗superior‘ in customer experience.‖2011 Aberdeen Research Survey So, why the Disconnect? 1. How companies measure the customer experience is often misleading 2. Quality process is inaccurate, reported scores are way too high View slide
  • A Common Occurrence • Reported QA scores are very high—happens about 80% of the time • Reported Customer Experience scores are high— happens about 50% of the timeAn Aegis example 4 View slide
  • Best Practices for Call Center Customer Experience Measurement1. Sample—Should be random set of callers; not just those who purchase; not determined by agent disposition2. Use 5-point scale with neutral midpoint3. ―Overall how satisfied are you with the call/transaction‖ is the question that matters—where you want a high score – ―Would you recommend…‖ also a good question to measure NPS4. All other questions are Attributes that Drive Overall Satisfaction/NPS – Should be the 6 Key Drivers (see next slide) – Only need to score high because they drive Overall Sat5. Key Metrics for Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction —need both – Top-Box and Bottom-Box are the two most critical
  • Measuring Customer Experience Recommended Survey Format: 5-point scale with a neutral midpoint Common Measurements: Top Box (Loyalty Score), Top-Two Box, and Bottom Box Often referred Top-Two Box = 65% of to as the“Loyalty Score” Very Satisfied …………. 5 25% Respondents Top Two Box were very satisfied (5) or Satisfied ……………….. 4 40% satisfied (4) Neutral………………….. 3 10% Dissatisfied ……………. 2 20% Bottom Box = 5% of Respondents Very Dissatisfied………. 1 5% Bottom Box were very dissatisfied (1) © 1996 – 2010 Customer Operations Performance Center Inc. (COPC Inc.) All Rights Reserved. Confidential and Proprietary Information of COPC Inc. Page 6
  • COPC® High Performance Benchmarks  COPC® High Performance Benchmarks for End-User Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction Benchmarks Top Box Top Box measures (Loyalty) 60% End-User Loyalty (5-point scale with a neutral midpoint) Top Two Box (CSAT) 85% (5-point scale with a neutral midpoint) Bottom Box Bottom Box sometimes (DSAT) 2% referred to as “Churn” (5-point scale with a neutral midpoint)© 1996 – 2010 Customer Operations Performance Center Inc. (COPC Inc.) All Rights Reserved. Confidential and Proprietary Information of COPC Inc. Page 7
  • An Aegis Example  Reported performance was excellent; consistently beating the target  However, Aegis Analysis shows OK, but not excellent, CSAT and poor DSAT CSAT Survey Results 5s 217 40.4% vs. 60% TB & 85% TTB 4s 117 Reported 84.2% 21.8% benchmarks vs. 80% target 3s 118 22.0% 2s 41 7.6% 1s 44 8.2% vs. 2% benchmark TOTAL 537 100.0%© 1996 – 2010 Customer Operations Performance Center Inc. (COPC Inc.) All Rights Reserved. Confidential and Proprietary Information of COPC Inc. Page 8
  • Satisfiers vs. Dis-satisfiers--they aredifferent Delight Customer Satisfaction Delighters Neutral Must Be Dissatisfaction Absent Fulfilled 9
  • Typical Satisfiers and Dis-satisfiers In COPC Inc.‘s experience, below are key drivers that are almost always found in Customer Service and Technical Support Satisfiers • Issue resolution (solve their problem) • Knowledge & Accuracy More is Better! • Empathy/Desire to help Dis-satisfiers • Handle Time • Customer’s ability to understand agent Meet Minimum Acceptable Level or “hit the sweet spot”! • Friendliness/ Courtesy i.e., an agent cannot be rude, but being nicer and nicer does not increase end user satisfaction 10
  • How we manage Satisfiers vs.Dissatisfiers should be different• Managing Satisfiers – Drive Dissat out – Drive Sat up – Continuous Improvement• Managing Dissatisfiers – Just Drive Dissat out – No need to drive Sat up – No Continuous Improvement beyond the Inflection Point 11
  • Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers should beevaluated and managed differently Dissatisfier Satisfier Satisfier Dissatisfier Rating Communication Knowledge Expertise Courtesy 5s 61 11.2% 61 11.3% 61 13.4% 87 16.0% 4s 193 35.4% 219 40.4% 173 37.9% 303 55.6% 3s 231 42.4% 194 35.8% 159 34.9% 141 25.9% 2s 43 7.9% 42 7.7% 33 7.2% 10 1.8% 1s 17 3.1% 26 4.8% 30 6.6% 4 0.7% 100.0 TOTAL 545 100.0% 542 % 456 100.0% 545 100.0% Needs Needs Needs o Some Work Work Work kAn Aegis example Note: This company surveys for 3 of the Key Drivers, but is missing Resolution, Empathy, and Handle Time 12
  • Analysis of Dissat• Courtesy, Knowledge, and Expertise are big drivers of overall DSAT• Note: Empathy and Handle Time are Key Driver attributes that are not evaluated in the survey An Aegis example Percent of Customers Giving a 1 or 2 on Overall Sat When They Gave a 1 or 2 on the Attribute 90% 79% When a customer 80% 72% gives a 1 or a 2 on 70% 70% Courtesy, 79% of the time they give a 1 or 60% a 2 on Overall 53% 50% Satisfaction 40% 26% 30% 20% 10% 0% Communication Knowledge Expertise Courtesy FCR DSAT % 13
  • Proper Measurement and Analysis, along with Operational Focus andActions works to improve the Customer Experience CSAT/DSAT Results 70% Top Box QPO Inc. Benchmark = 60% 60% 50% TOP BOX - Up is Good 40% 30% 20% BOTTOM BOX - Down is Good 10% Bottom Box QPO Inc. Benchmark = 2% 0%
  • The Problem We Typically Need toSolve• We need to make the Approach to Quality really valuable in contact centers—it‘s not today Customer Experience Quality Processes Measurement Methods Not Adding Value in Not Providing are Flawed; 99% 50% Performance isn‘t as Contact Centers Business Insights good as reported Not Providing an Not Providing Accurate Picture— Not linked to information Scores are way too Performance on necessary for high KPIs solutions 80% 90% 95% 15
  • Aegis‘s Quality Approach Addresses theDeficiencies in Today‘s Quality Process The approach to quality we are implementing at Aegis was developed by COPC Inc., known as Quality Process Optimization™ (QPO) It is very different from the approach most call centers use Our approach focuses on: Giving the client and operations an accurate view of the business Leveraging the call center to provide insights into the business Driving improvements in C-Sat, Sales (where appropriate), Cost, and Compliance We have successfully implemented this approach across multiple geographies 16
  • At Aegis, we avoid the Reasons Quality Scores typicallyDo Not Reflect the True Customer Experience One overall • Rolling up a quality result has severe limitations—Can‘t be correlated with C-Sat because it includes factors that score not an don‘t affect C-Sat; Compliance should have higher target, etc. accurate • Customer, Business, and Compliance performance measure should be reported separately • Quality agents typically evaluate ONLY if the agent did Evaluations everything correctly, rather than the customer‘s actual done from experience Agent‘s • Do not capture non-agent related issues impacting resolution perspective • Scoring done from ‗bottom up‘ rather than ‗top down‘ • Often do not include key drivers Ineffective • Too many non-critical items quality forms • Too many causal factors scored as output metrics • Not capturing enough information for OPS to take action
  • Aegis reports performance onthree Quality MetricsCustomer Affecting Critical • Anything that impacts customer satisfaction, such as: • Not solving the customer‘s problem Only this metric should be compared to Customer Satisfaction scores. One overall • Giving the wrong answer score cannot possibly be calibrated with C-Sat. • Mistreating the customerBusiness Affecting Critical • Typically, these fall into 4 categories • Loss of Sales • Cost/efficiency • Unnecessary loss of revenue (e.g., providing support to non-subscribers) • Something critical for the business (e.g., something for call avoidance)Compliance Critical • Any action or statement that is against prevailing laws and could cause company liability, such as: • Privacy • Other Regulations/Laws 18
  • At Aegis, we avoid the reasons Quality Scores typicallydo not reflect the true customer experience • Rolling up a quality result has severe limitations—Can‘t be One overall score correlated with C-Sat because it includes factors that don‘t not an accurate affect C-Sat; Compliance should have higher target, etc. • Customer, Business, and Compliance performance should be measure reported separately • Quality agents typically evaluate ONLY if the agent did Evaluations done everything correctly, rather than the customer‘s actual from Agent‘s experience • Do not capture non-agent related issues impacting resolution perspective • Scoring done from ‗bottom up‘ rather than ‗top down‘ • Often do not include key drivers Ineffective quality • Too many non-critical items • Too many causal factors scored as output metrics forms • Not capturing enough information for OPS to take action
  • Aegis Approach More Aligned With Actual Results An Aegis example Results from Existing QPO Quality C-Sat Survey Quality Score Score FCR 71% 96% 68% Score was high because calls were Calls evaluated from evaluated from agent‘s perspective. Customer‘s perspective If Agent did everything right, call was evaluated as Issue Resolved
  • Business Intelligence: Customer Service ExampleAn Aegis example Did not understand issue Opportunity for (12%) Operations to Did not use tools improve (28%) Did not follow Agent Issue (22%) problem solving steps (27%) Lack of knowledge (25%) Did not escalate (6%) No (43%)Was customer’s Opportunity for Another dept handles (75%) See next slideissue resolved? Company Yes business to policy/procedure for breakdown (57%) make systemic (67%) No support available (24%) changes Customer issue (6%) Misrouted calls Non-Agent Issue (13%) (78%) Technical / tools Dropped calls (8%) issue (25%) Knowledgebase Content issue (2%) (4%)
  • Breakdown of Issue Not Resolved--Not Agent Related:Transfers An Aegis example Issue not resolved due to Company Policy, Procedure, Process Limitations Issue Transferred to which Department 250 100% 206 99% 100% 100% 200 80% 59 100% 60 74% 77% 79% 75% 65% 44 80% 150 60% 45 # transfers # Errors 27 54% Cum % 60% Cum % 42% 30 29% 25 23 100 68 40% 18 40% 15 6 20% 4 50 20% 0 0% 2 0 0% Issue needs call Company Customer sent to be policy dictates information in transferred to that no support to Client B, but another is available issue not  If agents in this center are trained department resolved to handle billing inquiries, that would have as much of an impact on IR as fixing all agent issues in the call center
  • Business Intelligence Example--SalesAn Aegis example There is Lack of Rebuttal (30%) significant opportunity to Did not Probe Effectively (18%) improve conversion Did not Ask for Sale (14%) Agent Issue Not Giving Estimated (48%) Savings (12%) Not Giving Empowering Statement (10%) Lack of call Control (5%) Sales Not Made (40%) Other Sales Opportunities (11%) Yes Sale Made (60%) Customer Shopping (71%) System Issues (12%) Non-Agent Issue (52%) Customer disconnected during sale (7%) Other (10%)
  • Avoiding the reasons Quality Scores typically donot reflect the true customer experience • Rolling up a quality result has severe limitations—Can‘t beOne overall score correlated with C-Sat because it includes factors that don‘t not an accurate affect C-Sat; Compliance should have higher target, etc. • Customer, Business, and Compliance performance should be measure reported separately • Quality agents typically evaluate ONLY if the agent didEvaluations done everything correctly, rather than the customer‘s actual from Agent‘s experience • Do not capture non-agent related issues impacting resolution perspective • Scoring done from ‗bottom up‘ rather than ‗top down‘ • Often do not include key driversIneffective quality • Too many non-critical items • Too many causal factors scored as output metrics forms • Not capturing enough information for OPS to take action
  • Aegis Example – Incorrectly Designed Form How they should actually be treated: Customer Skills Summary:1 Displayed proficiency in listening skills including not asking Causal factor for Issue customer to repeat clearly stated information and by Resolve rewording any request for clarification and confirmation 1) 6 of 8 attributes2 Utilized business appropriate language, proper grammar, Non-critical (remove) correct pronunciation, avoiding internal jargon are either3 Allowed the customer to complete all statements without Causal factor for not that interruption or talking over before responding Courtesy (lack of) important OR they4 Demonstrated empathy by making statements / asking Critical attribute questions that indicate a willingness to help and by showing are a enthusiasm and responsiveness to Customer’s needs causal5 Created rapport with customer Non-critical (remove) factor 2) There are6 Fulfilled customer request Critical attribute only 2 key7 Displayed ownership by expressing concern for any lapse of Causal factor for customer service, (real or perceived), and refraining from derogatory Empathy (lack of) drivers – 4 comments regarding other departments or systems are8 Displayed effective communication skills by asking pertinent Causal factor for Issue probing questions to provide customer with what they need missing Resolve
  • We use COPCs Customer Experience Tool (CET) Typical Tool Challenges Customer Experience Tool Flexible and Customizable Form Structures – Inflexible Form Structure attributes can be in any order but still reported as three distinct metrics Dynamic and Real-Time Form Changes - a change Difficulty Making Form Changes can be made and reflected immediately Little to No Ability to Capture Multiple Levels of Multiple Levels of Attributes – to capture causal Attributes factors of errors Accuracy Results Reported as Three Metrics – Only One Overall / Average Score Customer, Business, and Compliance Critical Robust, Real-Time, Actionable Data – Trend Limited Reporting and Actionable Data results, accuracy by attribute, and Pareto charts User Defined Reporting Filters – customizable data Minimal Ability to ‘Slice and Dice’ Data fields for ability to drill down and analyze results at all levels Capture and Report Business Intelligence - data No Ability to Capture Business Intelligence Data that doesn’t impact quality results but provides valuable business insights© 2010 – 2011 COPC Quality Process Optimization Inc. (COPC QPO Inc.) All rights reserved.Confidential and Proprietary Information of COPC QPO Inc.
  • Mercedes Benz Financial ServicesAegis Improvement to High Performance Levels Improvement Approach: 1. Primary focus on improvement of Key Drivers and Compliance through communication and training of all impacted teams / agents 2. Systematic Procedural Improvements (Business Rules & Processes) 3. Driving improved consistency across agents
  • Aegis Approach for ToyotaAchieving Very High Levels of PerformanceF