Measure and Evaluate Call Centre Performance

Call Centre Benchmarks and Measurements

Read (2003) of Call Center Magazine outlines two types of benchmarking i.e., best practices (or best in class), and performance data comparisons between similar organisations. Call Centre managers commonly compare performance with their counterparts using metrics such as first-call resolution, talk time, cost per call, customer satisfaction, and training time. The results may be inexact necessitating further gap analysis to clarify the comparisons made. Pure cost measures such as, cost per call, and talk time, are being used less because their relevance is doubted. Increasingly profit-based metrics such as, first-call resolution, and average speed of answer, are being used because they reflect customer loyalty and sales.

Call Center Magazine (2003d) reported an average 6.4% failure rate for banking industry self service transactions. Market research firm Gartner are cited as reporting that self-service, and Computer Telephony Integration (CTI) technologies can reduce the average cost per contact by more than $5 and $1 respectively. However this depends upon automated Call Centres consistently delivering high-quality service. The following table provides an example of actual self-service transaction level metrics for an unnamed bank:

CSR Performance Indicators:

O'Herron (2003) refers to the following commonly used performance indication measurements:

Call Center Magazine's Read (2003) advises that concentrating on simple metrics is often misleading. Company senior executives want to know how expensive Call Centres are adding to the bottom line and the basic CSR performance data (e.g. average handle time, and first call resolution) is only part of the picture. Managers desire to know how the Call Centre operation relates to business metrics such as earnings per share (EPS) and return on investment (ROI).

CSR Turnover Model

Steven Hillmer, Professor at University of Kansas Business School, Barbara Hillmer, an organization development consultant, and Gale McRoberts a customer service performance consultant, present a model that they claim can accurately compute the total cost of CSR turnover by capturing both the tangible and intangible costs of replacing an experienced employee with a new hire. Hillmer et al, (2004) cites Denny, 1998 and MacDonald, 1998 to explain the need for such a model as CSR turnover is so high in many Call Centres, "accompanying the increased technological and skill requirements of today's call centres, management of the typical centre is highly structured, with close surveillance and work controls of the CSR population. Work times are precisely managed, with breaks and meals carefully scheduled. Frequently, the pace of the job is extremely fast, with little time between calls. In many call centres, the agents may deal with upset, angry, or frustrated individuals and may have to endure verbal abuse without reacting negatively. Often, the flexibility to respond to customers based upon their own judgment or discretion is severely limited. All of these factors combine to create a highly structured and stressful work environment", and citing (Anderson, 1997) "this results in turnover ratios in the industry frequently as high as 60 percent to 80 percent annually".

The Model, designed by Hillmer et al., (2004), quantifies both the direct and intangible costs associated with CSR turnover.
The costs associated with replacing a CSR fall into two categories:

The model was used to calculate the cost of turnover for a 31 agent, 4 supervisor Call Centre with the following findings:

Cumulative costs such as these once made visible to management would generate a mandate for improvement.

McCulloch (2003), Senior Research Consultant at LIMRA International reported from a longitudinal study of 14 Call Centres that 95% of CSRs who rated themselves as being "very satisfied" with their jobs remained in the position one-year or longer. Conversely 45% of the CRSs who were "very dissatisfied," did not remain more than a year.

Cleveland relates that by adhering to strict measures CSR staff can in fact become de-motivated because the majority, due to basic mathematics, will never be above average performers. In addition Cleveland outlines some better ways to manage the following:

Average Handling Time (AHT): Measures such as average handling time (AHT) are likely to be highly influenced by the nature of the calls taken, the processes and procedures available, the tools on hand, the experience, training, and skills of the agents; for this reason strict adherence to measures such as AHT can be counter productive. It is possibly more effective to identify the contributing factors behind AHT and to involve the CSRs with improving the processes.

Adherence to Schedule: Adherence to schedule is a very important performance measurement for Call Centres; however the real-time monitoring systems which track this measure can lead to undesirable staff motivational problems. An overview approach, in which CSRs are trained concerning time-sensitivity, and its implications for the Call Centre can be a better method from a motivational point of view. Giving CSRs flexibility and empowering them to track adherence to schedule, along with involvement in coordinating adjustments is likely to be more successful. Setting a range of achievable objectives for adherence to schedule is also of key importance.