Two things drive me to a posting on Average Handle Time (AHT).

1. A previous posting on Average Speed of Answer (ASA) remains the most popular posting on the blog, so I thought another Contact Center metric may be welcomed by our visitors.
2. A recent discussion with a group of the Contact Center managers clearly showed AHT to be a point of interest.

Metrics can be a subjective bunch, and as such, definitive answers about their use may be ilusive, so please be ready for some generalizations based mostly on my personal experience – which by no means is definitive.

AHT is an often misunderstood metric because on the surface it looks like a problem to be managed, while if we look deeper, it tends to act more like a symptom.

AHT Definition: The average length of time it take agents to handle a customer, wrap-up and become available for the next customers? (This differs from Average Talk Time (ATT), which excludes wrap-up and other ancillary activities such as research).

The obvious benefit of a short AHT is that agents can take care of more customers in a set time and therefore, less agens are required to handle the incoming load. Expectedly, management, usually upper management, feels very comfortable placing attention on AHT as a way to control the largest cost of a contact center, people. Likewise, many Contact Center managers concentrate on AHT ensuring agent efficiency, at times incenting agents to achieve lower an lower AHT levels.

In my experience, the control-point for AHT is not the agent. In stead, AHT is more directly affected by our ability to provide the appropriate environment, knowledge, tools and expectations.

Here are the areas I believe contribute most to AHT.

Appropriate Staffing Levels
Staffing can become a vicious cycle. “If we had more staff we would not have this problem, but, if we were more efficient we would not need so much staff”. Although this posting is too general to address this important balance, we do know that bad Average Speed of Answer, Service Levels and excessive hold times which are greatly affected by staffing levels, can add 30 to 60 seconds to your AHT. Primarily, in the time it takes to calm down irate customers and the composure time for agent stress. Irate customers have a great effect on agent morale and the efficient flow of the call. It’s amazing how much more efficient we can be when our customers are cooperative and our agents are not stressed out.

Training
It goes without saying that knowledgeable agents have lower AHT than new agents. But technical and product training only take us so far. Our agents must also know how to quickly assess a customer’s needs, troubleshoot and create an interactive flow that is conducive to quick resolution. They must also know when to escalate. An simple analysis of call length within a queue can show us the tipping point of AHT. Passed a certain call length, we can see calls have a higher likelihood of reaching astronomical AHTs. That is the point at which to intervene and ask your agents if they need help. I know of a team that calls this the 12 minute rule – at 12 minutes a lead agent or supervisor would simply ask “need help?”. Less stress for the agent, lower AHT.

Processes
How many screens do your agents need to manage in order to manage an interaction? Do they need to get up from their station and send faxes, pull manuals, etc? Inefficient processes can add considerably to handle time.

Empowerment
An empowered agent is a less stressed agent who knows he/she has some decision-making power to do the right thing for the customer. Less time is spent working towards an unlikely solution while giving the agent more ownership of the outcome and more perceived value as an employee.
Of course, empowerment is not for every agent and requires proper training and clear guidelines, but we would do well to push as much empowerment as possible to the front lines of our customer touch-points. Surprisingly, empowerment can be easier to manage than the policies and processed designed to ensure customer satisfaction through escalations.

Attrition
Attrition is an indicator to most, if not all agent inefficiencies. It is the single most costly event in a contact center, mostly occurring within 90 days of hire and costing up to $8,000 per agent.
When we have high attrition, our average newbie rate on the floor is high, which means knowledge and efficiency is low (just think what happens to your stats -including AHT – when you have a new team nesting? uhgg!).

Also, high attrition floors have more challenges in agent dynamics which make empowerment, quality, and employee participation less likely and more difficult.
Average Handle Time is therefore, greatly affected by our ability to hire and keep the right employees. If you have an attrition rate of more than 50%, don’t worry about AHT. You’ve got bigger problems.

Perhaps most controversial, is the topic of agent relations.
At times, we can enter into contentious cycles with our agent community. Usually driven by frustration in our inability to improve operations, we’ll begin to feel a disconnect and a difficulty sharing the same side of the fence with those who directly manage the customer.

As long as it’s acceptable for us not to share the same side of the fence with our agents, AHT will remain difficult to manage and, unfortunately, we will continue to press the wrong button, expecting different results. AHT is not a measure of agents approach or willingness to follow direction, but a measure of management’s ability to Train, Hire and Empower.

I believe AHT is not the best indicator of agent efficiency but a greater indicator of management effectiveness.

Rudy Vidal
Committed to XCS!

My father called Quest to have a new phone installed at the house.

On Monday, as scheduled, the technician came and connected the new line on the outside of the house. After some time, not knowing they had come, my father checked to see if the line was working and found the main line was not working, but the secondary line (available only in some of the rooms in our house) was now present.

He called Quest and asked them to return and install the line correctly. A new visit was scheduled on Thursday.

On Thursday a technician knocked on the front door to let my father know he had finished re-installing and was leaving. My father, who is not easily fooled twice, asked him to wait so they could test the line together. They found once again, the connection was made incorrectly. They both went outside and the technician quickly discovered the problem, fixed it and went on his way.

What is wrong with both of these customer experiences?

Most of us might say what went wrong was the technicians’ inability to complete their work correctly the first time. However, when I talked to my father about it, he seemed to understand and accept the inevitability of human error. What he was having trouble with was the lack of intention to provide a good service. Both times the technicians were uninterested in the effectiveness of their effort and more interested in moving on to the next task. The problem in my father’s mind did not seem to be lack of expertise as much as lack of intention.

Interestingly enough, if the right intention had been present, the problem, the costs associated with the second visit and the strain on the customer relationship would have been averted.

Why then, would Quest not ask their technicians to check with the customer before and after doing the work? The return on investment is certainly clear.

Intention overpowers errors and inefficiencies – because we are human and we value experiences more than error-free service.

Rudy Vidal

Committed to XCS !

it sounds easy, but the reality is that you can’t impose a new mindset, or a new culture.
What I find works best in creating a fast transition is to create:

1. Understanding of the logic – Why do we need to change or improve?
2. Provide the vehicles or processes that will carry new action and intention.
3. Create an expectation for results, coupled with effective Key Performance Indicators or metrics.

These three components do create change.

I believe the vast majority of people, given the opportunity, want to do the right thing, want to satisfy customers, treating them as customers should be treated.

However, if they don’t have the process, the information, the empowerment and the expectation from management, don’t expect miracles.

Extreme Customer Satisfaction happens when Management gets a new mindset !

(Some related posting to doing it) 1 2

Friends,

Today a colleague sent me this video which I think is not only inspiring but revolutionary in its simplicity and effectiveness to present the essence of XCS.

Please view it, it will make a difference.

Johnny’s video

Thank you.

Rudy Vidal
Committed to XCS !

Today I was part of conversation where it came to my attention that a feedback mechanism at a certain company was being ignored. When digging a little deeper into the matter, the reason for the lack of attention was “there are too many complaints being submitted and many of them are user problems”. This is the kind of thing that gives me a sense of job security.

The reality is that 93% of companies gather customer feedback. However, only about 33% actually use the information to make changes to product or process in order to improve the customer experience. The reason for this negligence is more often than not, unfavorably perceived ROI and perceived degree of difficulty. It’s too hard; it’s probably not worth it.

Although these perceptions may be true in any one case, feedback is no less important and should not be ignored. Customer feedback is the embodiment of the customer, who otherwise may not be directly represented.

In my mind, the voice of the customer is the ultimate driver of all experience initiatives. Until we hear the voice of the customer we will never know if we are moving in the right direction. No one in the company should be trusted to foretell, or indirectly assess the customer’s point of view.

Here are some thoughts on Customer Feedback.

1. Too much is better than not enough – (be careful not to overwhelm customers with surveys).
2. Never allow the culture to ignore it. It’s better to suspend it if you are not willing to act on it. Ignoring customer feedback causes the culture to devalue the customer and will make any improvement harder still.
3. Get feedback as close to the time of interaction as possible.
4. Provide the feedback directly to the person interfacing with the customer or providing the service – employees accept criticism and praise better from customers than they do from their supervisors.
5. Analyse and act – it helps the culture, the customer and your business.
6. The ultimate form of customer feedback is to bring dissatisfied customers to your office. Pay them as consultants for a day so they can provide their point of view to your team. Make sure you have some Q&A time. You won’t be sorry!

Here is a link to a recent podcast in which I had the pleasure to participate with BTQ magazine.

A customer is the personification of all possibilities in your business. Hug one.

Today I was discussing the underlying tenets of customer satisfaction with a couple of colleagues. We came out of the discussion with . . “the difference in XCS comes from treating customers like people as opposed to objectifying them as “customers, accounts, etc”. It sounds overly simplistic, but it’s true.

The discussion lead to a methodology by the Arbinger Institute that rang a chord with me. The methodology, as explained by my colleague, provides a better ability to control our “way of being” as opposed to controlling our actions.

It occurred to me that often our actions fall short of customer’s expectations because we are are simply acting (following the expected customer satisfaction practices) possibly lacking inner honesty. We are missing the proper “way of being”.

There are 2 ways to see people, he explains:

1. as Objects and
2. as Human beings.

You might think that one naturally treats people as human beings, but many times we don’t.

As we were in the discussion, our waiter came to the table to fill up our water glasses. I noticed that one of us acknowledged the waiter with eye contact and thanked him for the service. Then I thought – it wouldn’t be uncommon for me to simply move the glass as to make it accessible to the waiter, and accept the service without acknowledgement. This is an example of objectifying the waiter.

When we objectify people, he further explains, we can see them as:

• Vehicles (sources of wanted activity)
• Barriers (those people that stand in the way of what we want to happen),
• or Indifferently

The very nature of objectifying people makes us the center of focus – HOW DO THEY AFFECT ME?

This makes XCS impossible. I cannot think of the customer’s point of view, assess their expectations and exceed that expectation with a “service mindset” if I am focusing on how he or she affects me.

XCS is about treating people like human beings. Seeing their humanity before we judge how they may or may not affect us.

This is not so easy, but if we can do it, we will gain the respect and loyalty of our customers.

Customers are people too.

People want to do business with People, not companies.

Colleen’s last post about mindset shifting brought to mind the importance of Paradigms.

The primary reason for cultural resistance to change is the momentum held in the current paradigms.

A paradigm is a set of rules or expected actions used to solve problems. After time, the paradigm becomes the norm and thus drives the way we act in certain circumstances, many times without thinking or justifying our actions. We simply trust the paradigm. (For more info on paradigms check out Joel Barker, he is my paradigm guru- quite good.

For example:

Problem: traffic accidents at intersections

Solution and new paradigm: traffic lights – red=stop, green=go.

At first the current paradigm (slow down, proceed with caution dodging crossing traffic) will resist. After a while the new paradigm will begin to take hold as it proves effective in solving problems. Over time the paradigm is refined (add a yellow light, add arrows, add time delays) with more problems being solved as the paradigm matures.

The adoption of new paradigms can be painful but can also be very beneficial. There are risks – (to be discussed in future posts, if there is interest).

The current Customer Satisfaction paradigm is: Customer satisfaction is good as long as we can afford it (CS is a short term expense, for an unquantifiable, future benefit) This paradigm never really worked, but lacking the tools and processes to measure the benefits, what seemed logical prevailed.

XCS is a new paradigm that solves many of the uncertainties of the old and shows us the mechanism to attain loyalty and measure the progress and financial benefits to the organization. It is simple and easy to follow.

As Paradigms go, its not the most difficult to introduce into a culture.

Try it.