Customer ExperienceCustomer Satisfaction

Quality Series: Measure Quality Using Three Metrics, Instead of One Overall Score

April 8, 2016 No Comments

This is the third post in our blog series called, “Five Changes to Your Quality Program That Can Dramatically Improve Customer Satisfaction.”

With each post in the series, we will examine one of five fundamental changeswe recommend you make to your quality program. These are proven approaches to ensure your quality program is truly customer focused. Implementing these changes can drive significant improvements in the performance of your customer experience operations.

Here are the five changes we recommend:

 #1 Redesign the quality form to align with key customer drivers

#2 Score only output metrics and use sub-attributes to capture reasons for error

#3 Measure quality using three metrics instead of one overall score

#4 Evaluate transactions from the customer’s perspective, focusing on systemic issues impacting performance

#5 Expand the quality process to include the capture of business intelligence

Today’s Installment:  

#3 Measure quality using three metrics instead of one overall score

Many quality programs measure quality with one overall score.  In most cases, this starts with assigning point values for each attribute on a quality form, and then rolling up those points to produce an overall quality score for that interaction.  Over time, all scores are then averaged to provide an overall score.

Using one overall quality score leads to two significant problems:  producing inflated scores and the inability to see opportunities.

1. Inflated Quality Scores – Most quality forms contain too many items that do not impact the customer. These include attributes like “did the agent correctly complete the opening/closing” or “did the agent use proper hold procedures”. Agents typically get full points for these items, which inflates their quality score. This gives a company a false impression about how well they are performing in their customer’s eyes.  Sure, the overall score looks good, but what could be hidden in that score is that their agents are not performing well on what matters most to the customers, such as  issue resolution or coming across as knowledgeable.

Figure 1 and Figure 2 illustrate an inflated quality score. In Figure 1, Company X had high quality scores month after month. However, when COPC Inc. looked at their CSAT scores, they were only in the low 60%s, indicating a customer base that was not happy.

Quality scores not aligned with customer experience

Figure 1.

 

Quality #3 Figure 2

Figure 2.

 

Figure 2 shows the results of a recent survey conducted by COPC Inc., where companies think they are meeting their customer’s expectations, but the customer disagrees.

2. The inability to see opportunities – Having one quality score does not provide a company with a true picture of what the opportunities are. In Figure 3, the company’s overall quality score was 90%.  Upon seeing that score, a manager would likely say, “Hey, we’re doing great, so let’s go work on something else.”  However, breaking the quality score into three components shows the company only has a score of 70% in what matters most to the customer.

Overall score masks customer-critical score

Figure 3.

 

Given the problems shown  in using only an overall quality score, COPC Inc. recommends measuring three separate metrics:

  • Customer-critical accuracy – In the first installment <link to first post>of this series, we talked about redesigning the quality form to focus on the key drivers of the customer experience. This metric is the measurement of the accuracy of these attributes that matter most to customers, such as issue resolution, agent knowledge, and desire to help. If your quality form is designed correctly to include key customer drivers, the customer-critical accuracy is the quality metric that should most closely align with your customer satisfaction results.

 

  • Business-critical accuracy – This metric is the measurement of attributes that are most important to the business, such as cost or revenue. We all know that there are often business-critical attributes that are not important to the customer, but from a business perspective we also need to measure and manage areas critical to the business.

 

  • Compliance-critical accuracy – This metric provides a measurement of how well you are doing with attributes that are critical from a compliance or legal perspective, such as following privacy laws.

 

Knowing your performance is half the battle of improvement.  Breaking your overall quality score into three components will provide you a more accurate picture of how your company is performing as well as identify whether you should focus your improvement efforts on customer, business, and/or compliance issues.  Instead of incorrectly thinking you are performing well or not working on the right metrics, you will know what needs to be worked on and be able to drive improvements.

______________________________________________________________________________

Please check back soon to see our next post our series “Five Changes to Your Quality Program Changes That Can Dramatically Improve Customer Satisfaction,” series. We will examine our recommended Change #4:  How to evaluate transactions from the customer’s perspective, focusing on systemic issues impacting performance.

Want to know more? Read our previous posts in this series:

Change #1: Redesign the quality form to align with key customer drivers

Change #2, Score only output metrics and use sub-attributes to capture reasons for error 

Author Lezli Harrell

More posts by Lezli Harrell

Leave a Reply

X