How do you know if you are monitoring the right number of contacts? What are your competitors doing? What would your regulator expect you to monitor? Is there a common minimum number of contacts we could monitor and be reassured it is enough?

There are a lot of questions around the number of contacts that should be evaluated and we’ve heard most – and regardless of industry or team size, we can help you find the right answer for you.

At BPA Quality we understand that often trust is found within the statistical confidence of evaluations. We also understand the challenge that it takes a lot of effort, time and skill to churn large volumes of data to supply the confidence that many stakeholders look for.

Utilising our dedicated, expert analysts to generate precise, reproducible results, we are well-versed in ensuring statistically relevant sampling models are used where applicable, ensuring our output can be trusted to deliver a true reflection of your Contact Centre interactions, including any regulatory risks and Customer Experience outcomes.

We do also encourage a balanced approach to sampling, small volumes of data do not provide statistical validity, but they can be incredibly valuable to a business when used proactively to explore potential issues and their impacts far faster than big-data technology, and to evaluate areas such as emotion management, sales opportunities and vulnerability

We will help you clearly define what it is you are hoping to achieve when looking at your data from your QA activity and your customer satisfaction activity.

We know that QA and CX aren’t always going to align across a customer journey, and we work to ensure that any deviation in scoring is expected and understood by all stakeholders.

Working with our experienced experts you’ll be able to maximise both your QA and customer satisfaction processes and outputs to achieve your goals. Contact us to find out how we can help.

All too often we’ve seen the challenge that Quality Model Frameworks don’t support and enhance business objectives, and a key issue that drives this perspective is the lack of understanding about the detail within a scorecard and scoring guidelines.

We work with you in a partnership approach to establish comprehensive change plans with robust communication strategies and impact assessments, to crowdsource an understanding of what good looks like and determining the key messages that will help to explain the use, value and outcomes of your scorecard and scoring criteria.

Critically, we always aim to support the idea that ownership of scoring standards does not sit within the Quality Management function to be policed, rather it sits within the business to empower and support, with QA specialists and Team Leaders merely custodians of standards that everyone can challenge and enhance.

Numerous companies struggle to sort through the volume of data they generate, and this problem is exacerbated within many QA programmes because spreadsheets and even paper forms are used by so many to capture insights.

The approach BPA Quality takes is to always ensure the qualitative data we generate is subject to data rigour measures, and that anyone completing assurance and analysis is highly calibrated, and part of all change management plans. This ensures that there is confidence in the findings, that all findings align to the ever-changing demands of a contact centre, and that they deliver one version of the truth, generating greater confidence in data-driven decision making.

We have also developed our Quality Experience Software to record all captured data and all outcomes generated through use of that data to supply well-defined BI and Insight dashboards. All coaching and development sessions, Continuous Improvement recommendations and new product and service opportunities are recorded, shared and validated through further QA activity to maximise the value offered by a QA programme.

A key differentiator in the success of your contact centre is the extent to which your contact centre leaders can deliver effective coaching every day. Nothing beats well trained, well-motivated and empowered specialists when it comes to representing your business to your customers.

All too often Coaching is one of the first activities to get left behind when service levels drop, but effective coaching is critical to developing your contact centre staff, driving performance, improving key metrics and delivering an effective, positive Customer Experience. There are tangible commercial benefits to delivering effective coaching.

One of the key requirements for an effective coaching and development cycle is a Quality Model Framework that encourages everyone who is completing QA activity to highlight fantastic experience delivery, as well as areas for development, using coaching-ready phrases that minimise the effort for a coach to deliver a session that has positive and lasting impact on an individual. At BPA Quality we utilise our wide-ranging experience in the development and improvement of QA Frameworks to support enhancement in our partners, so they too have effective Coaching programmes underpinned by valuable outcomes generated by QA activity.

Some challenges we hear frequently at BPA Quality are that QA activity doesn’t provide a true reflection of an agent’s capability, that QA look for ‘bad’ interactions to assure or that QA are the business prevention team.

Establishing a comprehensive communications strategy that shares best practice, is open to challenge from all parties and is focused on cooperating to deliver operational, legal, regulatory and process changes with minimal impact is an important part of how a QA function supports the operational delivery of efficient Customer Experience outcomes.

Working together to ensure positive experiences are rewarded and recognised appropriately shows standards are attainable, brings QA standards to life and supports positive advocacy of QA aims within the contact centre. It is also important for QA functions to be open and inviting for escalations or disputes, as they are great sources of insight, highlight misalignment of expectations and support ongoing collaboration on interaction standards and assurance guidelines.