Average Speed of Answer / Service Balance accross sites

[MHJ Indy]

My company handles approx 9 mil inbound calls and produces about 2.5 mil outbound contacts per year. We handle this volume across four call centers in four different countries. We do use skill based routing as we offer calls to our most productive center first and so on. We do use an IVR. We experience ASA differences between centers for a full days operation as high as 50-60%. I am not a telecom expert. However, I'm sure there is a solution to this issue. We would like to better balance ASA accross our sites. Our telecom group in house sites the routing, IVR and differences in call handle time as the causes. However, they are short on solutions. Any ideas to solve this problem would be welcome.

[davidhb]

Check staffing levels for each location....just because you have enough CSRs doesnt mean they are in the right location for the number of calls they receive...

[alfy]

At one of the call centers I worked for we handled the calls virtually. This enabled a caller to be routed to the first available agent regardless of location. I hope this helps.

[JoeB]

More information is required to define the problem and identify the root cause(s) before a solution can be devised. You need to identify the call volume, staffing and skill availability in each location and verify that the routing scheme is correct. You say that you route calls to the most productive center, whereas they should probably go the one that is the least busy at that time (assuming they have the required skills).

An interesting phenomenon you need to investigate is the variability in ASA. It is quite possible that the performance is more equal than it appears, but because of the range and distribution of response times in certain locations, their ASA appears better than it realy is (see http://www.diagnosticstrategies.com/...c_modeling.htm for some background)

It is possible to create s single virtual call center that spans the 4 locations and optimize over the entire group, optimizing availability, skill set, and eve time of day at that location, but in order to do effectively further root case analysis needs to be performed.

[thetuan]

You have identified three possible reasons why the ASAs are different across your centers. You might have done this already but if not, then you should ask your telecom department to provide the millisecond of processing time (average for each call) for each of these categories. Once you have that information, then you can understand where the possible issue is regarding the difference in ASAs for your centers.

Ideally, there shouldn't be any difference is answered time if your centers are set up as virtual call centers. But if you see that the IVR time is higher for one center, then you can start to analyze how the IVR for that particular site is set up and how the calls are routed through each level of the IVR. If that is the case, then you might want to set up a team to come up with a different scripting for that particular site.

My guess is that if the routing and the IVR processing time are similar, then it comes down to staffing - that is a little trickier to solve because of the different locations of the call centers and of the skill based routing but if you have a strong workforce department, then they should be able to handle this for you.

Good luck!

[opsgal]

Have you heard of Geotel? It helps with load balancing between like skills at different sites. I am not a techy person but do know that Geotel bases the routing on skill sets available and handle time. It searchs for which site has more agents available and with a shorter handle time. A large center in Indy uses it in conjunction with our center in Florida.

Also, it is expensive to purchase Geotel and well worth it.

[atrober]

As noted, there are several potential causes for the discrepancy (including size of agent pool at each site, handling time, non-call work time, etc.). One solution that can help you lower ASA at all sites -- not just those with ASA 60% higher than the baseline -- is to implement a virtual queuing strategy. By offering your callers the chance to hang up and receive a return call in the same amount of time as if they waited on hold, you'll reduce your ASA (because callers are not routed to queue until they receive the return call) -- regardless of the conditions at each center. You'll find that your customers appreciate your respect for their time! You should see lower ASA and abandon rate across the board. Contact centers with very high volume (e.g. HSN, AT&T, Allstate) have implemented a virtual queuing strategy with great success. Check out http://www.virtualhold.com for additional information.

[mdbabb]

We utilize two methods of load sharing across our call centers. On the front end (from the local and toll free providers) we utilize percentage allocation in order to route calls to the centers as close to historical staffing. Also, we utilize virtual queing (in an Avaya environment, which we are, this is called BSR - best service routing) to queue to the location with the lowest EWT.

While callback messaging can assist you in reducing your ASA, your customer base may not be comfortable with leaving messages. Depending on the configuration of your callback messaging, your customers may be more dissatisfied than satisfied with the application.

Geotel is a great product for conducting front end routing to the center with the lowest EWT in order to reduce ASA, but it can be very expensive and complex to implement and maintain and the ROI can be difficult. You may be better off with a technology solution to allow virtual queing between centers and management of % allocation.

If you like, you can email me at michelle.d.babb@kp.org and we can discuss this further.

[atrober]

To clarify my earlier post: Virtual Hold isn't a callback messaging system. It's a virtual queuing system where callers enter their phone number and name, then hang up -- but the system keeps their place in line, so they receive a return call in the same amount of time as if they waited on hold (first-in, first out). The customers don't leave a voicemail -- so there's no need for agent training or intervention, because they handle a request from a customer who chose a return call just as they handle a normal inbound call.

Customers seem pretty happy with this option, judging by the feedback we get and the utilization rates we see!

[mdbabb]

It sounds like we have a difference of terminology, probably based on vendor differences.

Our call center is an all Avaya shop. As a result, what you consider to be a virtual queue is termd a callback messaging application. In our viewpoint, a virtual queue is a queue that is shared across sites.

It does sound like you have a great implementation - one that your customer base accepts. Our customer base and provider base did not accept the idea easily, but we are in a unique market.