Each quarter SWPP surveys the workforce planning community on critical workforce planning topics. Over 150 call center professionals representing a wide variety of industries participated and provided insight into this quarter’s survey on speed of service goals and measures. This survey was also distributed in 2018, so it will be noted where any significant differences have occurred over the last eight years related to service goals and measures.
The participants in the survey work in centers with a wide variety of agent sizes. The financial, heath care, and insurance industries drew the largest number of participants, but all other industries are also well represented.
Respondents were asked who in their organization sets the speed of answer goal for the center. This goal is extremely vital, as it determines the goal that will establish the required labor force. Given its strategic importance, the majority of organizations have this responsibility at the senior or executive level. Over half of the respondents (54%) say the contact center Vice President sets the goal, while another 15% rely on the call center manager and 21% of respondents look to the workforce manager to establish this goal (but likely under the direction of senior management).
Respondents were asked how they define their speed of answer goal. The majority of centers (54%) use service level as their definition, stating what percentage of calls are expected to be answered in a specific threshold of time (x% of calls in y seconds). A smaller percentage (26%) use Average Speed of Answer (ASA) as their goal. This goal represents the average delay of all calls for the period, including the ones actually experiencing a delay, along with the calls answered immediately. Some centers use a combination of both service level and ASA measures. This is especially true for those centers that answer calls for a variety of clients, where some want one measure and others prefer another. For a single center, however, it can be confusing to have both measures in place. Only 4% of centers use abandon rate as a goal.
The next question in the survey asked for the specific definition and there were over 40 different answers. The most common response was 80% in 60 seconds, with many other answers similar to that (80% in 45 seconds, 90% in 60 seconds, 80% in 90 seconds, etc.) Many responded that their goal depended on the client being served or could vary by work type.
It is interesting to note that the speed of answer goals in the 2018 survey followed the same distribution of service level versus ASA versus combination. However, there is a change in the actual goals. The goals noted in 2018 were more ambitious, with the most common goal being 80% in 30 seconds. The goals overall in 2018 were aiming toward shorter delay times than the average in 2026.
Participants were also asked how they arrived at their speed of answer goal. Many indicated they had simply inherited the goal and it had been the same for a long time. Others said they evaluated abandoned calls reports to note the callers’ tolerance to delay times. Some noted that they consulted “industry benchmarking data” to determine their goal, which can be dangerous since so many different factors come into play in determining what works for each business.
The respondents were asked how long their current speed of answer goal has been in place. The largest percentage in the survey indicate their goal has been the same for 1-4 years, so perhaps some change has happened in recent years. Some organizations have done things the same way for a very long time with 25% of respondents saying their goal has been the same for more than 10 years. Another 24% said 5-9 years, indicating that many organizations do things the way they’ve always done them. This is a bit troubling since it is likely that all businesses have changed somewhat over the past few years and customer expectations have also likely changed. It’s important to examine this number regularly to see if it still reflects the needs of the business.
Survey participants were asked how they measure the success of meeting their service goals. The biggest percentage (46%) evaluate whether service goals were met on average each month and only 6% measure week by week. The next largest number measure and assess daily whether the goal was met. Only 8% measure success by interval.
It can be misleading to measure success monthly. There could be two weeks where service was terrible and another two where service was great, averaging out to meeting the goal. Likewise, just looking at the daily average of service numbers doesn’t provide any information about hourly problems. Service problems in the morning could be “balanced” by outstanding service in the afternoon and the result would look like all was fine for the day, when in reality, expectations were not met in the early hours and overstaffing was likely in the short delay period. The best approach is to measure interval by interval in order to fully assess service delivery.
A best practice for many centers is to measure how many of the intervals of the day service goals were met and how much deviation occurred from the goal.
Respondents were asked in what percentage of the day that they meet their service goals. This is most often measured by simply looking at which periods of the day was the goal met or exceeded. The results showed that only 12% are meeting goals 90% of the time. The two most common answers were either 80-90% or 70-80% with both answers at 37%. These answers indicate most centers are hitting their goals the majority of the time.
Another and perhaps better way to measure may be within a certain percentage (maybe +/- 5%) of the goal, either above or below. Having a goal of 70% and making 90% may constitute success for some, but from an efficiency point, it may show actual overstaffing.
The best approach is to measure how many intervals of the day the service goal was met within a certain percentage.
Respondents were asked whether they measure their customers’ satisfaction with the speed of service they are delivering. The majority (56%) do not measure this, while the other 44% do. It is a useful question when doing a customer survey, as it can help determine whether the center’s service goal is fine or whether it needs to be increased or decreased. For example, the center may be meeting its own service goal, but if customers are unhappy with the delay, the goal may not be ambitious enough. Likewise, the center may not be meeting its defined delay goal, but if customers indicate they are fine with the delay (because maybe the quality of service is so good), then perhaps the goal can be relaxed.
When asked about plans to change their service goal in the coming year, an equal 7% said they plan to raise it while the other 7% plan to lower it. The other 86% have no plans to change. Given that the speed of answer goal dictates staff requirements, it’s important to get it right. It is a topic that should be discussed each year during the planning and budgeting process.
The most common definition of speed of answer is service level (x% of calls in y seconds). There are many different service level goals throughout the industry, based on customer demands, budgets, staffing philosophies, etc. Most organizations have had the same service goal in place for many years, and it is worthwhile to examine this target regularly to ensure it still meets the needs of customers and the business.
Most centers measure their success at meeting service goals. However, the measures that show the average service for the day, the week, or the month can be averaging out service lows and highs and hiding service issues that need to be addressed. It is much more effective to measure each day by interval and determine which periods meet the goals and which do not. This approach can lead to forecasting or scheduling adjustments that can result in a more consistent delivery of service.
