Plan requirement
| Subscription | Any plan |
| Also required | Quality Assurance or Workforce Engagement Management |
| Access | Admin |
The questions a conversation is judged against. It is your own definition of good service, written down.
What it contains
- Rating categories, the individual questions.
- Weights, where some matter more than others.
- A scale, how each category is scored.
- Critical categories, where a failure fails the whole review.
It is a definition, not a form
Writing a scorecard forces a team to agree what good service is here. Most teams discover during that exercise that they did not agree, and that discovery is worth more than the scores.
Short beats complete
Four to six categories. A long scorecard takes fifteen minutes per review, so fewer reviews happen, and reviewers start scoring the middle option to get through it.
Each category needs a clear answer
"Did the agent confirm the customer's issue before answering?" can be judged from the transcript. "Was the agent helpful?" cannot, and two reviewers will score it differently every time.
If you cannot point at the evidence, the category is not usable.
Critical categories, sparingly
One or two, for things that genuinely invalidate the interaction: giving wrong information, breaching a policy. Making everything critical makes nothing critical.
Weights are a message
Whatever you weight most heavily is what the team will optimise. Make sure it is what you actually care about, rather than what was easiest to define.
Expect to revise it once
After a quarter of real reviews, one or two categories will be ambiguous. Revising then is normal; revising every month means nobody can compare anything.
Comments
0 comments
Article is closed for comments.