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

02:30 13:30 16:30 21:30 01:30 22:30 17:30 08:30 10:30 07:30 06:30 20:30 11:30 00:30 19:30 05:30 12:30 09:30 04:30 23:30 03:30 14:30 18:30 15:30 07 21 11 29 03 19 15 09 13 25 01 17 23 27 05

Legend: 4.011.018.0 %

Vendor 2

02:30 13:30 16:30 21:30 01:30 22:30 17:30 08:30 10:30 07:30 06:30 20:30 11:30 00:30 19:30 05:30 12:30 09:30 04:30 23:30 03:30 14:30 18:30 15:30 07 21 11 29 03 19 15 09 13 25 01 17 23 27 05

Legend: 0.09.018.0 %

Legend

This shows the transfer rate for each vendor, every half hour, for every day of the month.

Dark cells indicate higher transfer rates. Light cells indicate lower transfer rates. The legend for the values is shown at the bottom of each vendor.

Vendor 1 has had an uplift in calls transferred in the beginning of the month. Could be coinciding with new advisors going live. Else, deep dive into the call profiles will lead to further understanding of reasons for the same. Vendor 2 shows consistent increase in transfer rates in late evenings and early mornings. This could be attributed to nature of calls and/or management coverage. Study of IVR options in the nights and correlation with AHT in these hours will throw some more light on this trend.

Staff time analysis

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 clearly has a lot of time which can be categorized as non productive. Nevertheless, Service Levels are being missed and abandoned calls are high. It is important to look at their intraday staffing levels and also the call routing. If the calls are being routed to the next available agent, Vendor 1 should have much more occupancy especially with AHT of vendor 2 being higher.
 Vendor 1 37.9% 38% 21% 10% 32% Vendor 2 71.9% 69% 8% 14% 9%

Width of the bars indicate total calls. Legend: AHT base Break time Avail time Non-productive time

Cost per call

Vendor 1

Week 1 4.6 Week 2 4.5 Week 3 4.6 Week 4 4.3

Vendor 2

Week 1 1.9 Week 2 1.9 Week 3 1.9 Week 4 1.7

Transactions per agent

Vendor 1

Week 1 19.1 Week 2 19.0 Week 3 18.2 Week 4 19.6

Vendor 2

Week 1 25.2 Week 2 24.1 Week 3 26.4 Week 4 26.7

These graphs show the range for cost per call and transactions per agent for each vendor. Vendor 1 is operating at a very high cost because their staffing is very high for the calls they handle. Staffing needs to be realigned to the call arrival pattern. That should also improve transactions per agent for them.

Vendor 1 correlation

28 18 -27 -7 22 3 -1 20 5 -1 -24 -30 -13 -40 6 -1 -18 -24 -5 4 1 -32 -36 -3 36 -7 -27 26 -10 17 7 22 12 -3 26 34 -11 13 4 -8 42 20 -10 19 -35 Attr TFR ADH Qual FCR Wrap Talk Hold Occ CSat

Vendor 2 correlation

21 -6 -25 -11 14 -11 -1 -8 -23 -3 -29 -5 -3 -12 43 4 -36 31 -4 -6 32 -30 -23 8 12 27 26 -17 24 47 -16 5 -6 16 31 45 -16 32 7 -10 17 34 11 -13 12 Attr TFR ADH Qual FCR Wrap Talk Hold Occ CSat

The visualisations show a correlation matrix. Each cell shows the degree of correlation between every pair of metrics. The number indicates the correlation value (e.g. 50 indicates a 0.50 correlation.) Diagonally opposite is a scatterplot showing the pattern of relationship between the metrics. The colour indicates the degree of correlation. Red indicates a negative correlation, green indicates positive, and yellow indicates a no correlation. In this case, there is no correlation between Talk and FCR especially for vendor 1. Though advisors are talking more, issue is not resolved for customer. There is also a complete negative correlation between Talk and Transfer Rate. This would indicate advisors focusing on keeping the AHT down, by quickly transferring the call and not resolving the query.