Vendors

Summary table: Weekly metrics comparison

Metric Vendor Target This month Last week 2 weeks ago 3 weeks ago 4 weeks ago
Service measures Service level Vendor 1 80% 82% 84% 85% 83% 79%
Vendor 2 80% 89% 90% 89% 89% 90%
Aban rate Vendor 1 4.0% 7.5% 5.3% 4.6% 7.0% 10.6%
Vendor 2 4.0% 2.7% 2.8% 2.6% 2.8% 2.7%
AHT Vendor 1 650 inf 56529 inf inf inf
Vendor 2 650 568877 194344 428324 1361500 357302
Quality measures Quality Vendor 1 85% 82% 84% 82% 82% 81%
Vendor 2 85% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91%
First call resolution Vendor 1 65% 64% 63% 63% 63% 69%
Vendor 2 65% 72% 72% 70% 73% 72%
Customer satisfaction Vendor 1 75.0% 71.2% 79.0% 69.7% 70.3% 70.0%
Vendor 2 75.0% 80.9% 78.0% 80.6% 81.1% 81.4%
Transfer rate Vendor 1 9.5% 8.3% 7.8% 6.4% 6.6% 11.4%
Vendor 2 9.5% 8.1% 8.0% 7.8% 8.4% 8.0%
Profitability Occupancy Vendor 1 65.0% 37.9% 38.0% 36.2% 37.7% 40.2%
Vendor 2 65.0% 71.9% 75.9% 70.9% 76.0% 64.5%
Cost/call Vendor 1 3.0 4.4 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.2
Vendor 2 3.0 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.1
Transactions/agent Vendor 1 40.0 19.1 20.1 18.5 18.6 20.3
Vendor 2 40.0 25.7 25.9 27.5 25.8 22.5
Employee measures Schedule adherence Vendor 1 85.0% 85.0% 84.9% 85.3% 84.9% 85.0%
Vendor 2 85.0% 86.1% 86.2% 86.0% 86.1% 86.0%
Attrition Vendor 1 1.5% 2.1% 2.2% 2.1% 1.9% 1.9%
Vendor 2 1.5% 1.4% 1.6% 1.4% 1.6% 1.2%

Calls handled ('000)

September 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Vendor 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Vendor 2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Service level

Average September 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Comments
Vendor 1 is struggling to achieve Service Level as indicated by the reds. Further deep dive below shows high available time for vendor 1. It would be worthwhile to look into the call routing of vendor 1 and the intraday staffing level (schedules not in line with intra day call arrival pattern)
Vendor 1 82% 65% 80% 74% 69% 79% 78% Vendor 2 89%

Abandonment rate

Average September 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Distribution
Variation in calls abandoned within Service Level raises questions around customer behaviour - why would they drop calls without waiting a few more secs to get their queries resolved? Do we need to check the IVR options? Comparatively vendor 2 is able to attend to the calls and therefore positively impact C Sat.
Vendor 1 7.5% 76% 9% 13% 2% Vendor 2 2.7% 85% 2% 11% 2%

Width of the bars indicate total calls. Legend: Answered within SLA Abandoned within SLA Answered after SLA Abandoned after SLA


Average handle time

Average September 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Distribution Vendor 1 inf s 69% 28% 3% Vendor 2 568877.1 s 92% 7% 1%

Width of the bars indicate answered calls. Legend: Talk time Hold time Wrap time

Quality

Average September 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Comments Vendor 1 82% 79% 80% 81% 80% 79% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 83% 81% 78% 82% 83% 84% 83% 82% 81% 81% 81% 82% 83% 84% 84% Vendor 2 91%

First call resolution

Average September 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Comments
Vendor 2 clearly scores over vendor 1 on FCR. Therefore higher AHT might not be detrimental to the business. Moreover the AHT scatter indicates that there is good control in operations in Vendor 2 organization which contributes to their high FCR
Vendor 1 64% 58% 61% 57% 62% 63% 54% 53% 64% 64% 61% 57% 54% 63% 57% 55% 59% 62% Vendor 2 72%

Transfer rate

Vendor 1