Many evaluation forms are still based on a ‘yes or no’ answering model that will not convey whether the agent is exceptional or not.
Business Systems wanted to better understand how contact centres are using their Quality Monitoring (QM) technology. A survey was conducted with over 100 respondents across various industries in order to gather information on the current state of QM.
Respondents revealed that applying call evaluation often led them to realise that their agent scoring systems were biased, as in most evaluation forms the evaluation criteria will only measure and encourage agents to provide an uneventful and/or functional service as opposed to a positive one.
It gives the impression that agents are performing well at the expense of designing processes and scoring systems that effectively improve customer service.
‘Yes or no’ models make it harder for managers to address real problems
Many evaluation forms today are still based on a ‘yes or no’ answering model that will not convey whether the agent is exceptional or really poor at dealing with a customer’s request, making it that much harder for managers to address real problem areas and devise an appropriate coaching strategy.
A fair scoring system would allow managers to identify where the agent’s performance was at its weakest and, combined with a review of call recordings, depict a more accurate picture. By leveraging all the information that quality monitoring offers, organisations can start to establish new standards which agents can be successfully monitored and developed against.
Managers taken aback at how poorly the majority of their agents perform
The survey results also demonstrated that, although a number of managers seemed pleasantly surprised to uncover good agent performance (empathetic behaviour, ability to react well to different situations, etc.), many are often taken aback at how poorly the majority of their agents perform. They cited a lack of business knowledge, poor communication skills and poor discipline as the main reasons for concern.
The survey pinpointed agent improvement as the overwhelming drive for evaluating calls, with 49% of respondents citing this as their primary purpose for using Quality Monitoring, while ensuring customer service levels were met and adequate care provided to the customer came second, at 25%