|
Strategic
Call Distribution
By
Peter DeHaan, Ph.D.
September/October, 2002
I will admit it – I have a propensity towards
idealism. I think that life
should be fair and that everyone, regardless of position or past, ought to be
granted equality of opportunity. This
perspective causes me to advocate impartiality when distributing calls in the
call center, with each call handled in the order in which it was received,
without distinction of origin or pre-determined importance.
However, it seems that few teleservices companies concur with this
conclusion; in fact, pragmatism and reality dictate a different course of
action.
The first deviation is often to give primacy to sales
calls, client check-in lines, or the main company number.
After all, the speed and efficiency at which these calls are handled
will form the callers’ perception of the level of service provided.
It is this perception that attracts new business and retain existing
clients, thereby influencing the bottom line.
The second departure from call equality is also
self-imposed, whereby certain account groups are deemed more important than
others. Although the determining
factors vary – client profession, caller urgency, dollar value of the call,
or type of service provided – the results are a definite segregation of
callers into a tiered call-distribution scheme.
Though this is a natural development, there is little merit for doing
so and it should be abandoned.
A third divergence is more insidious.
This results from a natural reaction to the “squeaky wheel”
syndrome. It is when the chronic
complainers and those who are excessively demanding are given a higher call
priority in order to appease their sense of self-worth or to mitigate their
criticisms about the service level. This is the most ominous departure from ideal
call-distribution – and most self-defeating.
Examine the clients in this category.
We have already defined them to be overly critical and implied them to
be frequent users – and abusers – of customer service resources. Now dig a bit further. How
do these clients treat your staff? Are
they pleasant and a joy to talk to or do they challenge, threaten, and
denigrate your agents with each interaction and at every opportunity?
Are these the clients who take the joy out of your employee's work and
have the ability to reduce staff to tears?
I suspect that this might be the case.
If this is not enough, now look at their profitability level.
If they badger both the customer service staff and the agent, they are
likely treating accounting the same way, extracting credits, discounts, and
other monetary concessions under the pretext of “poor service.” The conclusion is inescapable: these clients are given the
highest level of service, treat your staff the worst, and are unprofitable!
This is masochistic behavior; stop the madness!
I propose – in partial jest but with
thought-provoking seriousness – that a different model be considered.
If one must deviate from the idealism of universal call-distribution,
do so with thoughtful analysis and self-serving diligence.
First, implement call-distribution based on profitability.
Perform a profitability analysis, dividing clients into five groups
relative to your average revenue per minute.
The top group is those clients whose revenue per minute is twice the
average. This makes sense; you
make a nice profit with every call you answer, so respond quickly and give it
your best. Keep this group happy
and retain them as clients. The
second group will be those clients whose revenue per minute is 1.25 to two
times your average. This, too, is
an important group, which deserves prompt attention and above average service. The middle group will be those at the average revenue per
minute and up to 1.25 times. This
is the average group and they deserve – and pay for – average service.
Although these three groups should include the majority of your client
base, they will likely not comprise the majority of your traffic.
Divide the remaining clients into two groups according to
profitability. The exact cut-off
point will be a result of how diligent you have been in attempting to make
every client profitable. For the
sake of example, assume that the fourth group will comprise those who are
between seventy-five percent of the average and the average.
Then the lowest call priority will be given to those with revenues per
minute of under seventy-five percent of the average.
Why not give these accounts the lowest priority?
After all, it could be argued – on a micro level – that you lose
money every time you answer their line! (On
a macro level, it can conversely be argued that these accounts necessarily
contribute to the overhead and the economies-of-scale of your organization.)
What I have advocated is likely a reversal of your
current call-distribution configuration, thinking logically and tactically
instead of being reactionary. Imagine
if you will, handling yet another customer service call from a frequent
complainer. “You took too long
to answer my line,” the client asserts.
“You are on our ‘economy’ rate plan,” you respond politely,
“so your call is given a lower priority.
You are getting exactly what you are paying for…now for an extra
twenty-five cents a minute…”
If that sounds like fun, as well as being a good
business strategy, take the concept to the next level.
In the preceding discourse, I proposed five levels of service.
Now expand that to eleven levels by inserting a grade between each of
the original ones and by adding one at the very top and one beneath the
lowest. The clients are still in
the original five levels, but there is now a graduated step in between for
fine-tuning. First, survey your
staff. Which clients do they like
and which cause undo consternation? For
the nice clients – those who are kind and pleasant, who drop off a gift at
Christmas, who treat your staff with dignity and respect – move them up one
level in the call-distribution hierarchy.
After all, these clients make your staff happy and a happy staff is an
effective staff. Conversely,
those clients cited for their undesirable characteristics – the ones your
staff are afraid to talk to – move them down a notch.
The clients will still be essentially ranked by profitability, but
fine-tuned based on staff interactions.
Next, make a return visit to accounting.
Look at payment history. Some
clients will consistently remit payment soon after getting your invoice.
Many will pay by the due date. Some
will habitually stretch your terms out to 45 or 60 days and a small minority
require an ongoing collection effort. Again,
modify your call handling priorities based on payment history.
Those who pay immediately are moved up one level; those who pay late,
move down a notch. But those who
present a constant challenge to collect, move down two steps.
After all, it is likely that eventually they will leave you with an
uncollectable debt, so why not give others a higher priority?
If this discussion has you excited – wonderful!
If your mind is churning with revolutionary ideas to change client call
handling priorities – great! However,
do not attempt to implement these radical changes all at once, or even too
quickly. The shock to your client base would be more than they – or
your business – can tolerate. Rather,
begin to think strategically about call-distribution, making small,
incremental steps to prioritizing calls in the best interest of your
organization; the change will be extraordinary.
To read other articles written by Peter DeHaan,
go to From
The Publisher or check out his blog at
http://blog.peterdehaan.com. In addition to publishing Connections Magazine
and AnswerStat magazine (for hospital and medical related call centers), Peter
also publishes several related websites, including
MyArticleArchive.com.
He may
be reached at 866-668-6695, dehaan@connectionsmagazine.com
or www.PeterDeHaan.com.
Return
to List of Articles || Read more articles at MyArticleArchive.com
|