<img height="1" width="1" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=137435990315467&amp;ev=PageView &amp;noscript=1">

Why voice analytics and more data may not be the answer to your quality monitoring problems.

Call quality monitoring is incredibly important for contact centres, providing insights into agent performance that can help you increase contact centre efficiency and customer satisfaction. Yet I am still surprised to find out just how many contact centres are well-equipped to collect data, but fail to use this data to deliver value to the business.

If you want to drive real improvements in quality, then your monitoring must go beyond a tick box approach. If you think your contact centre might just be playing lip service to quality monitoring, here are three fundamental questions to ask yourself.

Have you created a super-efficient tick-box exercise that says 95% of contacts meet the quality standard, but anecdotally when you listen to calls only 5 out of ten are close to the standard you’d like to offer your customers?

The concept of monitoring the quality of a call may sound straightforward but it can be difficult to decide what metrics you should be measuring. Defining a list of soft skills and process adherence metrics and then marking each line based on whether the agent has met the expected standard is limiting.

To discover the truth about how well your contact centre is doing you need to measure quality against extremes of performance. Spotting those super positive or negative comments leads to a more comprehensive view of agent performance and helps you focus your coaching activity where it will have the biggest impact.

Are you worried about sample size?

Time and time again, I’ve heard the challenge – “We can’t use our quality results because it’s not a fair representation of an agent’s performance”. The fact is, quality is a means to an end, not the end itself. By that I mean that quality should be used to help identify opportunities for improvement and sources of information for a coaching conversation, not to derive a performance metric.

By getting team leaders directly involved in the quality process, you create a culture where they can better support their teams because they understand what the team members are doing on a daily basis and you don’t need to spend hours doing this.

We recently experienced an operation where managers didn’t do any quality measurement and had very limited understanding of the processes and systems that their team members where using – how can you support and lead a team if you can’t evaluate their performance on the day job?

Are you using the data to drive improvement?

Irrespective of whether you’re using a manual process or voice analytics to evaluate quality, you need to measure the right things and coach agents using the information, otherwise it’s just another metric that goes into a scorecard.

One final thought - Over the years, I’ve heard the phrase – “This all sounds quite onerous and time consuming?” My answer is always the same – “Managing, supporting, engaging and leading people should be time consuming.

Whether you have big data driving the process or manually derived performance insight, as a team leader, you should be spending over half of your time using that data to identify opportunities for recognition and improvement with your team members” Are you doing that? Find out how to improve your quality monitoring strategy.