Jason Napierski looks at the real reasons why contact centres are reluctant to abandon traditional QA practices.
1. Better the devil you know
“Contact centre leaders are aware of the weaknesses of their current QA programs, but all agree that even if the system is imperfect, QA adds considerable value,” claimed DMG Consulting in their recent White Paper. “Some information about trends, systems issues, bad policies, and poorly performing agents is better than none.”
But is it really? This type of needle in a haystack approach to QA is not only ineffective, it’s also prone to error. What happens if the QA analyst evaluates a call too quickly, misunderstands sarcasm on the part of the caller, or overlooks a critical insight?
In any of these cases, manual review of calls could potentially lead to greater harm than good. An automated QA solution, on the other hand, can monitor and categorise calls – without the risk of human error.
2. Myths loom large
Migrating from traditional QA to an automated solution requires purchasing a next-generation QA/recording (workforce optimisation) solution that includes speech analytics.
It also requires getting front-line supervisors and agents on board with the new QA approach, which involves training them on how to use the new system and educating them about its benefits.
For contact centre leaders hesitant to make the transition, this may seem a cost-prohibitive and overly time-consuming solution. However, manual review of calls is itself not a cost-effective or scalable QA methodology.
As an agent pool grows, the costs of QA quickly spiral out of control. As a result, companies are left with gaps in coverage or less than perfect monitoring.
3. If it’s not broke, don’t fix it
Contact centre technology, not to mention customer expectations, have evolved considerably over the past 30 years.
While supervisors were once tasked with performing the manual task of QA, they’re now being pulled in many directions beyond just that one business imperative.
With so much already on supervisors’ plates, the challenge has become convincing them to perform evaluations and coach their agents.
However, traditional sampling only covers about 5% of all calls that come into a call centre, making it virtually impossible for managers to get a true sense of why customers are calling or how each individual agent is actually performing. In these instances, performance feedback may be misguided or completely off the mark, which defeats the entire purpose and deteriorates morale.
Instead of becoming resigned to an outdated and ineffectual QA methodology, managers can focus on agent coaching with manual QA processes checked off their to-do lists.
With thanks to Jason Napierski, Product Marketing Manager at CallMiner