QA - Quality Assurance or Quality Advancement?


Looking beyond Minimum Acceptable Standards and making every evaluated call result in performance improvement.

 

QA, Evaluation, Compliance - Whatever it gets called, evaluating customer communication is both commonplace and an essential cog in the contact centre wheel.

 

Experienced professionals pore over call recordings or other customer interactions, grading against the weighted scorecard metrics that dictate the quality of interaction, providing in all likelihood a score and whether it met the minimum acceptable standard set.

 

What a wasted opportunity!

 

Minimal acceptable standard? Is that what today’s uber competitive market requires? Do our customers crave a minimal acceptable standard of communication?

 

Even where a complex score matrix can provide agents, managers and coaches rich feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of a call or other interaction, highlighting what went well and didn’t, the path to Quality Advancement is often a slow, laborious and fragmented one at best.

 

In a world of instant gratification, what does this experience typically look like for an agent? Let’s take the following not untypical examples:

 

Good Call - A strong score, I passed with flying colours. Happy agent. 86%. But the opportunities to further improve those few areas where a ‘good’ call could have been a ‘great’ call, which HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED (the few points dropped or OK moments or responses) by the QA team may never be used to improve my performance.

 

Perhaps I’m given my score breakdown but coachable moments aren’t replayed and those playbook moments that contributed to a good score are rarely profiled or shared. Now that would have made me feel good!

 

Acceptable Call - Some parts were great, truly playbook. Others were frankly a missed opportunity and certainly could have been better. But overall, it was a pass.

Yay me! I reached the minimum acceptable level, on to the next call then where I can carry on (being average)!

 

Perhaps (ages after the call took place), I may be taken off the floor for ‘coaching’, it may be replayed and perhaps get some pointers. At least on some of my average calls.

 

Poor Call - Ironically, my best chance of improving performance. I’m taken off the floor, my call is replayed and my manager, team leader or coach identifies and interprets the reasons the QA team flagged the call I can barely remember. It’s pretty demoralising and hardly an inspiring experience.

 

Let’s jump back to our QA team. They are identifying these coachable moments that contribute to our lost points - and our playbook moments that deserve profiling, praise and sharing. But all we get is a score, a pass or a fail.

 

It doesn’t have to be like this.

 

What if just those coachable moments had been tagged, then shared with feedback directly from QA?  If examples of the same scenario were shared, with a coaching investment of minutes if not seconds and without taking an agent off the floor? Frequent, bitesize coaching moments and praise, directly from the same time investment from QA.

 

Likely coachable moments can be identified, automatically tagged from a transcript based on words or phrases used or searched for and tagged retrospectively, minimising the investment of time to find moments of praise, ideas or corrective feedback.

 

So are you Assuring Quality, or Advancing it? Perhaps we can help you, gaining infinitely more business value from your evaluation, QA or compliance process?

 

SHARE
comments powered by Disqus

Sign up to our Newsletter

Get the latest news about Refract straight to your inbox!

Subscribe now to stay receive our monthly newsletter with all of the latest from the world of coaching and feedback and the best of our blogs, case studies and developments at Refract Towers.