In the UK Emirates Airlines are using the tag line “When was the last time you did something for the first time”, on their TV adverts at the moment.

It’s a good question, a good tag line and a something we all ought to think about.

When was the last time you were challenged to do something out of your normal day to day workload? [1] When was the last time YOU thought, “Is this right? Can we do it differently? Can we do it better?”

One of the trends I’ve noticed over the last few years is the tendency for the industry as a whole to say, “This is the way to do it.” Unfortunately dogma rears its ugly head and the cries of heresy can drum innovation down.

I like to think I know my way round forecasting, I know the myth that is a marketing forecasts, I know Erlang (well not personally as he’s dead), I know my teams, I know that for us WFM is not applicable, I know our forcasts are good. What I don’t know is if we are doing it the right way rather thanjust the standard way.

There is a lot of work being done by people who are a lot cleverer than me at MIT and the University of Huazhong that I think will revolutionise the way we forecast in the next 10 years.

Hands up who has heard of FPP or Fractal Point Processes? I’m about to use lots of buzzwords now, Fractal, Chaos, Self-Similar, Stochastic, Poisson, Superposition, Queuing theory, FMPPP (Fractal-Modulated Poisson Point Process), FBNDP (Fractal-Binomial Noise Driven Process) and traffic engineering. Whoever is playing office bingo may shout house now.

Ok, buzz words out of the way. Nothing is new in the basic structure of how a queue works. The research at the moment is looking at the huge amounts of traffic across international switches and doesn’t apply; yet, to the smaller volumes we get in our centres however it is something to be watched. The theory is that unlike a traditional Erlang model, which applies a steady state transformation to the data, a much more robust fractal model can be applies CONSTANTLY remodelling, intraday becomes automatic, and ‘smarter’. [4]

Now I know and can understand the math behind the Erlang calcs. I’m even working on a way to break it down to ‘Math for Managers’. [5] I know Mandelbrot, Julia and Lorentz’s work, hell I even understand about 40% of it, but now we all need to start looking to the next new thing. In our case it WILL be VOIP, we don’t have any chance, copper to glass, analogue to digital. We WILL be going there. The infrastructure is already in place in what is the biggest network in the world, why will telecoms companies continue to install and upgrade voice networks when they can bang the call across the spare bandwidth they already have on their shiney new data network. The first stages will be transparent with the voice end still being a standard phone but the transmission over IP. Moving later to IP Phones and IP only call centres. This isn’t a warning more of a heads up that these things are changing.

Which leads me back to the point above.

In a VOIP environment an Erlang forecast won’t work, callflow across a network is chaotic, network loading needs to be balanced to allow agents to take audible clear calls not just calls. Traffic engineering will be the new callflow planning, FMPPP and FBNDP will replace Erlang B and C as the accepted methods for forecasting. Staff planning will move from agent Vs call planning to Bandwidth Vs Agent planning.

We are fortunate at this point to be in at the start of something new and possibly the biggest revolution in communications since the rotary switch, the drawback is for all of us it’s back to school.

The two articles below give an insight and the third I can’t find a weblink to at the moment.

1) Fractal Point Process and Queuing Theory and Application to Communication Networks

Gregory Wornell MIT

2) A Case For Fractal Traffic Modelling

Ashok Erramilli, Walter Willinger MIT

3) Performance Analysis of a queue under FPP Self-Similar Traffic

Chen Chun Han, Cao Mingcui, Liu Erwu, Li Feng and Luo Zhixiang.
Huazhong University

And as an introduction to fractal modelling.

A leap of faith with Fractal Analysis by John Conover

Have fun, time to hit the books

DaveA

[1] For me it was Sunday. I’ve been asked for permission to publish an article I wrote.
No problem as far as I’m concerned however can I supply a short bio? Now looking at this it looks easy. Just come up with 2 short paragraphs about myself, some contact details and Bob’s your mums brother. In true panto fashion. “Oh no it isn’t”. I had THE greatest attack of writers block I’ve ever had in my life. The first 3 attempts ended up sounding more boring than a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of The Grey Party.

Do I not have a life? Have I not done many varied and fun things? Did I not get slung out of a Greek nightclub for an incident with a goat, a plate of olives, the barmaid and a bottle of Tequila. [2][3]

So it shouldn’t be that hard should it? Ha. So my thanks to Iain Hardy for acting as editor on that one.

[2] One of these is a lie

[3] Best guesses on a postcard to…

[4] Trust me I’m going somewhere with this

[5] Watch this space, but don’t hold your breath.

Measuring agent productivity

“Calls per Hour, Talk Time, Idle, and Wrap (ACW) are nonsensical targets in the majority of contact centre environments, yet they remain the number 1 key performance indicators for contact centre agents around the world!”

In the perfectly managed contact centre, it may be possible to guarantee a consistent flow of calls to all agents, however this requires impressive resource and workflow management. It is feasible that with a limited product and service range a genuine optimum “talk time” and “ACW” target can be applied to all calls. But do any of us work in such a simplistic and idealistic environment? (If so I have a CV ready to forward to you!)

So if we take away these foundations of our performance management culture what do we use to measure the productivity and efficiency of our contact centre agents? And who is responsible for ensuring team productivity and efficiency remains high?

Let us start by examining the traditional targets…

Calls per Hour
This is dictated by numerous factors controlled not by the agent but by the operation’s managers; therefore it is the managers who must be targeted on their teams’ efficiency (occupancy and utilisation)
? The resource levels of the team determine the “available” time in the team. “Available” time can be directly influenced through utilisation management, but not by the agents.
? The call traffic volumes dictate the frequency of calls hitting the queue. Only the customers can decide to call in.
? The length of calls and associated “Wrap” (ACW) determines the availability of agents to take calls.

Wrap (ACW)
Wrap time will vary depending on the nature and complexity of the call, as well as being influenced by the skills of the agent. However, poor Wrap is more likely to be caused by quality issues than productivity issues. If Wrap is a productivity issue then this will come out through the productivity measure of Occupancy.

Average Call Length
This is the same as targeting Wrap – the nature & complexity of the call (and of the callers) decide the length of call required.

Idle
“Idle” is signed on time where the agent is not involved in calls. Other than personal (comfort) breaks “Idle” must be planned, or where reactive must be tracked and recorded. As “Idle” usage is planned and therefore beyond the control of the agent, it cannot be targeted for the agent performance; to do so results in agents penalised for training, etc. A typical “Idle” breakdown for an inbound contact centre profiles as:

? Breaks 7.25 % (30 minutes per day)
? Personal breaks 2% (Average 8.5 minutes per day)
? Training / coaching 5% (Average 1 hr 45 minutes per week)
? Query for use by lower benchmark agents only against individual targets
? Meetings 2% (Average 3 hr per month)
? Idle “Admin” only to be used for accountable time, such as being taken off the phones to support administration
? Idle “None” must not occur for any reason.
? Idle “Training” must be accountable by either the training team or the Team Leader. Any ad hoc coaching should be recorded against “Training”.
? Idle “Query” must only be used by agents in the lower benchmark as agents’ queries must be answered during the call by either an assist or handoff, or during the wrap part of the call (recorded as “Wrap” or “ACW”). If calls are being handed off due to a skills or knowledge gap then this must be picked up as coaching or training, to be delivered when call flow allows. Daily ‘buzz sessions’ and ad hoc meetings such as daily target setting must be recorded against “Meeting”
? Agents must sign off the phones for lunch, as this is unpaid time. Remaining signed on distorts the true occupancy and shrinkage figures.

So if we are asked to manage performance without these cornerstones, what targets are left that can give us a useful measure of productivity in the contact centre? ….

Occupancy & Efficiency
? “Talk” time - Targeted against individual performance
? “Wrap” time - Targeted against individual performance
? “Available” time
? “Occupancy” = “Talk” + “Wrap” + ”Available” / “Talk” + “Wrap”

? Talk time is only partially under the control of agents. The requirement in most businesses is dependant on the nature of the individual call. Excessive talk time, when caused by lack of call control or knowledge, is a measure of quality issues not productivity, and should be addressed as such.
? Wrap time (ACW) is the only state an effectively managed agent can place themselves in to avoid taking further calls. However the length of wrap required will be determined by the nature of each call. It is therefore the correlation between Talk + Wrap that needs to be managed.
? Talk time vs. Wrap time provides an accurate measure of agent efficiency. As an agent’s knowledge, experience, and technical proficiency increases the % of talk time must increase and the % wrap time decrease.
? Talk time & wrap together provide the “occupancy” measure. Efficient occupancy is usually considered to be around 80-85%; the maximum occupancy before agents start displaying defensive and negative behaviours is 88% plus. The occupancy measurement is a % of time signed into “Talk”, “Wrap”, or “Available”. E.g. 65% “Talk” + 12% “Wrap” + 23% “Available” = 77% “Occupancy”

Quality
As well as the use of specific QMS procedures, quality can be highlighted through some of the traditional productivity KPI used in contact centres

? Talk time – Excessive talk time may indicate poor call control or lack of knowledge, very low talk time may be indicative of not fully servicing the client, or rushed work.
? Wrap – if wrap is disproportionate to talk time, then there is likely to be a knowledge issue.

Managing the business imperatives
While this form of targeting is fair & effective on agents, it does not necessarily address the business targets for your contact centre. This is where traditional targeting works far better.

Team Calls Per Hour
The CPH performance of your team is dictated by the resource profile against call arrival. A high CPH with poor SLA means understaffing, a low CPH is indicative of over resource. Where CPH is low against a high SLA managers should look to utilise their resource more effectively, such as training sessions, or supporting other functions. If CPH is consistently low and SLA are achieved then the centre is over resourced and redundancy or redeployment should be considered

Team Idle
As, in this model, all Idle is planned, excessive Idle in a team means poor resource planning and management. Idle is managed through scheduling of non-phone activity, and is supported by conventions such as “no more than X people out per shift”. Training, meetings, etc must be planned in line with resource profile vs. call arrival.

Sickness
Sickness is either genuine, or a conduct issue. Genuine sickness must be supportively managed, but can legitimately lead to dismissal if handled correctly, and when it is determined that an individual is not fit to work in their role. Setting a target for sickness at agent level penalises genuine sickness and sanctions limited “sickies”

Ok… so if you have made it this far then maybe you see some value in what I am proposing? I hope so! In which case get out into your business and canvas agents views to see if this could be applied in your contact centre… you may find (as I did) that your overall performance improves, agents feel they own their performance, managers manage; and who knows what additional benefits a happy & productive well managed environment may bring.