QATC Survey Results

[one_half]This article details the results of the most recent QATC quarterly survey on critical quality assurance and training topics. Over 80 contact center professionals representing a wide variety of industries provided insight regarding their quality assurance and training organizations and ways they work together.

Number of Agents

The largest number of participants is from call center operations with over 500 agents, followed closely by those with 101 to 200 agents. While the insurance and financial industries are well represented, “other” was selected by the largest number of participants. This mix of respondents provides a broad spectrum of call center sizes and industries.

Training Staff

Just over one-third of the respondents have 3 to 5 training personnel, with a relatively even split among those with all the other choices of size. Thirteen percent of the centers report that there are no full-time trainers in the center. This corresponds roughly with the number of respondents from centers with less than 50 personnel.

QA Staff

Only 7% of the respondents indicated that there is no full-time quality assurance (QA) person in their center (compared to 13% with no trainers). Nearly half of the respondents have 6 or more QA staff. This suggests that the staffing for QA is generally higher than for trainers in many centers responding to this survey.

Dedicated Staffing for Training and QA

When asked what percentage of the training and QA staff are dedicated to the contact center, nearly three-quarters responded that neither are dedicated. Only 5% indicated that both are dedicated to the center operations while 9% have only dedicated QA personnel and 13% have only dedicated trainers. This suggests that sharing of personnel for these functions with other departments within the organization is common.

Analysis of Scores for Multiple Agents

Survey participants were asked who analyzes QA scores for trends affecting multiple agents and two-thirds indicated that this is a responsibility of the QA department. Only 6% indicated this is a role of the training personnel while 12% responded that this is a role for the floor supervisors. While 10% indicated that this role is handled by someone other than the options listed, 6% indicated that no one is responsible for analyzing for trends affecting multiple agents.

Actions for Multiple Agents Making the Same Errors

It is important to identify when the same challenges are being faced by multiple agents versus just one or two. Individual coaching is effective for single issues, but group training may be more appropriate/efficient when several are experiencing the same difficulty. When survey respondents were asked how these multiple error situations are handled, 42% indicated that supervisors coach their own personnel individually (with no coordinated effort evident). However, another 42% indicated that the training department is alerted to determine if a training class is needed. Another 16% indicated that the situation is handled in another way.

[/one_half]
[one_half_last]

QA Alerted to New Training Content

When asked if the training personnel alert the QA team when a new training program has been completed, over half (53%) indicated that this is done frequently. However, 22% provide such alerts only if there is a change that is required in the QA scoring form. The remaining 25% either pass this information to QA rarely or never. When agents learn new information or a new technique, it is important to reinforce the learning through coaching. When QA is alerted to monitor for this specific activity, it can help the coaches/supervisors to provide both positive reinforcement and correction as needed.

Common Issue/Solutions Discussion

When asked if the training and QA personnel meet to discuss common issues and solutions, 39% indicated that this is done frequently and another 29% do it regularly but less frequently. Twenty-two percent indicated that this is only done as needed with 10% reporting that it is never done in their center. Communication between these two groups can be effective in efforts for continuous improvement as each is looking at different aspects of agent performance.

Recommendations for Working More Closely Together

Participants were asked to provide free-form responses for recommendations on how the QA and Training teams could work together more closely to improve performance. The responses fall into two major types. Some already have a communication plan in place and believe it is working well but could benefit from adding supervisors, the analytics team, or more frequent interaction. The other group of responses indicate that the two teams are not coordinating as well as they might (or at all). Hopefully, this survey will point out a possible opportunity for these personnel to work more closely for the benefit of the center and its customers.

Conclusion

This survey provides insight into the interaction of the training and QA teams in managing contact center performance. While some centers are working with personnel dedicated to the center operation, others are sharing these personnel with other departments. This can be an extra challenge to developing the communication needed to spot and react to trends in agent performance.

There is evidence that coordination between these two functions in well-developed in some centers, while others have little or no communication/analysis plan in place to spot multiple agent needs. Each QA may be done as an independent monitoring of a single agent/contact with each supervisor handling coaching on an individual basis. The Training department may determine what is needed for the next training class without input from the QA team and may not inform QA when a new learning needs to be monitored for reinforcement. When these two teams work together, it can improve both the efficiency and effectiveness of both efforts.

We hope you will complete the next survey, which will be available online soon.[/one_half_last]