I think that your basic attitude is correct. WhatÂ’s the point in setting performance standards if you have built-in excuses not to meet them? Also, this approach leaves much room for interpretation, such as how do you set the threshold over which you are allowed to miss the service level? And by how much?
The service level target needs to be set to a level that in essence is a compromise between customer-facing metrics, such as ASA and abandonment, and resource availability. This is an absolute (not average) metric. In other words, resource must be allocated so that no less than 70% of the calls are answered in 30 seconds or faster (not in average of 30 sec.).
Without having the call statistics of your situation (volume, AHT, etc.) or more information about your all centers (e.g. how the load is distributed nationally?), it is impossible to determine if the service level is set correctly and if it can be improved without increasing headcount. But my experience is that there are often hidden opportunities that can be leveraged at a very low investment after a basic analysis of the situation.
If you are challenged with a very unstable call volume, then, by definition, staffing for the peaks will cause low utilization during slow times. However, in most cases, analysis of long-term history will reveal a pattern of call volume, so you can staff accordingly, by time of day, season, etc. Additionally, as you suggest, you can find methods to improve service delivery so that the existing staff can be more effective and able to support the peaks in call volume.
Joe Barkai
www.DiagnosticStrategies.com
jbarkai@DiagnosticStrategies.com