Quality vs. Operations

[Quality Guy]

I'm trying to create a synergy between our quality and operations departments. Communication seems to be our number #1 issue. Has anyone else faced this problem, if so, how did you resolve it?

[ctaylor]

Guy,
Quality and ops sounds like the ultimate in team building,

the following is an exerpt from a newletter published by TRG ( its free), which I thought might be appropriate. The team building issues are the same between Ops and Quality.

"This is likely one of the most common questions I hear when assisting contact center operators to improve the performance of their contact center. This element of teamwork is a critical element required to achieve operational innovation breakthroughs.

In order for you to achieve your desired results you need the Supervisors to improve their skill base. You need them to improve but also want them to understand that they can lose their job...eventually if they don't buy in to improving their skill sets, if it comes down to that.

The first thing needed is to build an effective team consisting of you and your supervisors (and any other stakeholders who should be included). There are 5 key elements required to make a team effective. They are;

1. Trust- you must all trust each other. To engender trust you must be vulnerable to each other. That means you have to be open and get to know each other better. Because without trust you cannot have healthy conflict.
2. Healthy conflict is essential to any team. Now I am not talking about personal attacks, I am speaking about ideological conflict...conflict about issues not personalities. Once the team trusts each other and is vulnerable to each other they can (and will) engage in issue driven conflict. Because without conflict you cannot get buy-in.
3 Buy-In- once you have had healthy conflict with everyone participating in a focused discussion you can get them to 'buy-in' to a decision. Without healthy conflict they will not participate and will feel any sense of commitment or 'buy-in' to the decisions made. Without this commitment or ‘buy-in' you cannot hold them accountable.
4 Accountability- once they have committed to a decision they can then be held accountable to deliver the promised results. Without Buy-in they will not accept responsibility for "somebody elseÂ’s idea" or will fee that "it is somebody elseÂ’s problem". With Accountability you can pay attention to results.
5 Results focus- Once your supervisors are accountable you can then focus on improving the results of the teamsÂ’ efforts and improving the effectiveness of your operation.

So you should apply this management technique to your contact center. There are more articles on this topic available under the “news’ section of the TRG website"

I hope I have added some value, if I can be of any further assistance please email me at ctaylor@thetaylorreachgroup.com

Colin

[Plaberge]

Nothing kills morale faster than a poor quality evaluation. Most quality departments hide behind secrecy, never disclosing who evaluated the agent's call. At one time I worked as a Quality Assurance Specialist prior to a promotion as Operations Supervisor then Manager. I hated the built in animosity created by the "confidentiality" of the evaluator.

I started a trial program with two supervisors and their teams comprising of 45-50 agents. The concept was simple. No secrets. During the weekly team meetings I identified myself as the one that would be performing all of their monthly evaluations (minimum of 4 per agent). I continued to meet with them weekly and share their top 5 best practices for each team and the "low 5" most often scored behaviors.

After becoming a supervisor I continued this study with another member of the quality department who shared my commitment and viewpoint. This interaction did several things. We did away with the "them against us" atmosphere. The agents were free to approach me about anything on the call and evaluation. I had the freeness of speech to look them in the eye and say, "Yes, I scored this category as unacceptable. Let's talk about why and I can give you pointers so you will never miss this category again."

After 3 months these two teams had the top quality scores in the center out of 42 teams (we intentionally picked the lowest teams). The agents understood the quality process and knew how simple yet effective changes to their call handling techniques could improve their scores. These agents also were noted as having the best overall attitude in the call center.

I was able to pull small groups of these agents off the phones during low call volume times and conduct "calibration sessions." One or two members of the group would volunteer to have one of their calls evaluated. We asked the agents to use the same forms that an evaluator used and to come up with an overall score. Then we considered each category. Agents expressed how and why they scored as they did. Then I would give them the correct score, explain why and then move onto the next category. This allowed for them to hear recognition and practical solutions from their own team members. This was most effective in dealing with "grey" areas, for example in discussing an agentÂ’s tone or attitude. It was more effective fro them to hear one of their peers say, "Dude! You sounded like a jerk!"

As the agents were trained to evaluate calls from the same perspective of the Quality department guidelines, they automatically raised their own scores because they understood the process and expectations.

Another benefit surfaced. The Quality member became attached to the teams. These were exceptional people who would not bend the rules to give someone a better score than they deserved. They understood that they would become ineffective if they showed any partiality, negative or positive. This worked so well that our Quality department adopted this as a best practice. The department changed their reputation from being "the phone cops" to being coaches and trainers, highly respected by the agents.

This represented a huge change for our company. There were many who objected but once they saw how the quality scores raised in the entire center, they silenced their views.