<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Service Level vs. Cost vs. Customer Experience</title>
	<atom:link href="http://chriscrosby.net/blog/2008/05/29/service-level-vs-cost-vs-customer-experience/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://chriscrosby.net/blog/2008/05/29/service-level-vs-cost-vs-customer-experience/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:16:16 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dave Marcus</title>
		<link>http://chriscrosby.net/blog/2008/05/29/service-level-vs-cost-vs-customer-experience/#comment-712</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Marcus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:33:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chriscrosby.net/blog/2008/05/29/service-level-vs-cost-vs-customer-experience/#comment-712</guid>
		<description>Chris,

I agree with your concerns about the experience of the other 20%.

What is the approach that you advocate (to replace the use of service level)?

D</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris,</p>
<p>I agree with your concerns about the experience of the other 20%.</p>
<p>What is the approach that you advocate (to replace the use of service level)?</p>
<p>D</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Thomson</title>
		<link>http://chriscrosby.net/blog/2008/05/29/service-level-vs-cost-vs-customer-experience/#comment-711</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Thomson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:55:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chriscrosby.net/blog/2008/05/29/service-level-vs-cost-vs-customer-experience/#comment-711</guid>
		<description>I thought I might tell you about a story from a call centre visit I had some ten or twelve years ago. It was to a top 20 British company and the call centre manager I visited was bonused for making the 80% of calls in 20 second service level. He was very happy because every month he made his target and collected his bonus, but without the need for overstaffing. He wouldn't tell me how he did it, but when I looked at his Call Routing rules I soon saw how he was achieving it. All calls that came in were allocated a medium priority level. However once a customer had been waiting for 20 seconds their priority was lowered. This is obviously counterintuitive as you would expect the customer's priority to be increased the longer they wait. But it's not counterintuitive if your bonus depends on the service level being met. After all, if you have two customers in the queue and one has been waiting 10 seconds and one has been waiting 30 seconds, why would you answer the longer waiting customer? They're already outside the service level, so they might as well wait longer. Answer the one that counts towards your bonus. The problem here is the metric - it's useful for measuring routing efficiency, but it's one dimensional and it doesn't reflect the customer experience. It could also be very dangerous. For instance, what if that customer who is forced to wait minutes (if they ever get answered at all) was one of your best customers, or about to place a large order or a blogger with a readership of thousands? The call centre manager's bonus would be negligible compared to the lost business.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought I might tell you about a story from a call centre visit I had some ten or twelve years ago. It was to a top 20 British company and the call centre manager I visited was bonused for making the 80% of calls in 20 second service level. He was very happy because every month he made his target and collected his bonus, but without the need for overstaffing. He wouldn&#8217;t tell me how he did it, but when I looked at his Call Routing rules I soon saw how he was achieving it. All calls that came in were allocated a medium priority level. However once a customer had been waiting for 20 seconds their priority was lowered. This is obviously counterintuitive as you would expect the customer&#8217;s priority to be increased the longer they wait. But it&#8217;s not counterintuitive if your bonus depends on the service level being met. After all, if you have two customers in the queue and one has been waiting 10 seconds and one has been waiting 30 seconds, why would you answer the longer waiting customer? They&#8217;re already outside the service level, so they might as well wait longer. Answer the one that counts towards your bonus. The problem here is the metric - it&#8217;s useful for measuring routing efficiency, but it&#8217;s one dimensional and it doesn&#8217;t reflect the customer experience. It could also be very dangerous. For instance, what if that customer who is forced to wait minutes (if they ever get answered at all) was one of your best customers, or about to place a large order or a blogger with a readership of thousands? The call centre manager&#8217;s bonus would be negligible compared to the lost business.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Marcus</title>
		<link>http://chriscrosby.net/blog/2008/05/29/service-level-vs-cost-vs-customer-experience/#comment-708</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Marcus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2008 17:16:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chriscrosby.net/blog/2008/05/29/service-level-vs-cost-vs-customer-experience/#comment-708</guid>
		<description>Chris,

I agree with your concerns about the experience of the other 20%.  

What is the approach that you advocate (to replace the use of service level)?

D</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris,</p>
<p>I agree with your concerns about the experience of the other 20%.  </p>
<p>What is the approach that you advocate (to replace the use of service level)?</p>
<p>D</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
