Every day, contact centers around the world record billions of agent calls. As part of a typical call center operation, a percentage of these recordings is usually evaluated by a quality assurance company to monitor agent-customer interactions, e.g., Was the customer’s problem solved? However, the process of manually evaluating calls suffers from some problems.
1. Manual Call Quality Monitoring is expensiveAs much as you would like to, it is impossible to score 100% of your calls manually because it is expensive. Manual evaluation of calls at least doubles the cost of each call (first you pay your agents to pick the call, then a monitor to evaluate the call.) Unfortunately, some call center managers are still stuck in traditional call evaluation methods using humans to monitor calls, which only amounts to reviewing 1%-2% of calls. As you can imagine, such call centers are losing out on 98% of agent-customer interactions that could provide ground-breaking insights. They are missing out on opportunities to boost customer satisfaction and the return on Quality management.
2. Unscientific Sampling Gives Inaccurate ResultsAccording to Call Centre Helper’s poll, over 67% of contact centers only measure 0-6 calls for each agent every month. Given that all calls are not the same; some are longer than others; such unscientific and random sampling often leaves the contact center with an inaccurate and imbalanced view of agent performance.
3. Monitoring The Wrong CallsIf you are only going to evaluate 1-2% of your calls, what are the chances that the remaining 95% of calls don’t include TCPA violations? Unless your monitor 100% of your calls, there’s no accurate way of telling whether you are missing the calls which deserve your urgent attention.
4. Myopic Focus on Voice CallsResearch by ICMI shows that 20% of organizations do not even monitor voice calls with regularity. But what’s worse is that most contact centers are focused on evaluating calls only when there are countless agent-interaction happening through emails and IVR. If these platforms are not monitored with the same intensity as calls, then the contact manager only has a partial view of agent-customer interactions.
Our Solution for Call Quality Monitoring to Busy Contact Managers and Supervisors
We Leverage a Hybrid of Speech Analytics and Human Analysts to Monitor 100% of your Calls.Instead of reviewing only 1-2% of your calls, we use voice analytics to transcribe 100% of customer-agent interaction in your call center. And because voice analytics only has an accuracy of 77%, we have added a layer of human analysts to listen to the critical calls flagged out for review. For example, as part of script adherence, certain words or phrases that an agent should be saying in every call, e.g., ‘30 Day Free Trial’. Instead of listening to every call, our machine will flag out all the calls that do not contain the keywords, and these calls will be passed on to our human analysts for review and scoring. Combining humans and machines saves not only time but also provides a more accurate representation of agent performance.
We Monitor Customer-agent Interactions Across All PlatformsAlthough supervisors and managers are often in charge of call center quality assurance, in a center with 500 agents and a 15 to 1 agent-supervisor ratio, it’s impossible for them to monitor quality effectively. What’s more, monitoring calls may end up distracting your supervisor, who is supposed to focus on coaching. That’s why most call centers prefer to work with 3rd party quality assurance companies. Not only do we use human analysts to calibrate calls and prevent bias in scoring agent performance. We also capture data on agent-customer interaction across all platforms, from email to social media.
We Help You Make Accurate Decisions Fast
- Who is your best agent?
- Who has the most missed scores?
- Who’s on the coaching queue?
- How many calls have we answered this month?