Plan requirement
| Subscription | Any plan |
| Also required | Quality Assurance or Workforce Engagement Management |
| Access | Admin |
Reviewing conversations so quality is measured rather than assumed. Useful, and easy to introduce badly.
What it does
- Selects conversations to review, by rule or at random.
- Scores them against a scorecard you define.
- Gives agents feedback on specific exchanges.
- Reports on quality over time, by team and by category.
What it is actually for
Finding out what good looks like here, and helping people get there. Not producing a score.
The score is a means of having a specific conversation about a specific exchange, which is the part that changes anything.
Who it suits
Teams large enough that a lead cannot read everything, and where quality varies enough to matter. Usually from around ten agents.
Below that, a lead reading conversations and talking to people does the same job without a product.
The way it goes wrong
Introduced as a scoring system, it becomes something done to agents. People write to the scorecard rather than to the customer, disagreements become appeals, and the reviews get quietly less honest.
Introduced as coaching, with agents involved in building the scorecard, it works.
Reviewing is a real cost
A thorough review takes ten to fifteen minutes. Whoever does them needs that time in their week, or reviews stop happening after a month.
Start small
One team, a short scorecard, a handful of reviews a week. Expand once the conversations it produces are useful.
Comments
0 comments
Article is closed for comments.