Question: We have been operating between 8am-6pm M-F and have built our 2009 budget based on the staff hours required to handle our customer calls.  In an effort to reduce expenses (staff hours), we would like to explore the option of operating between 8am-4:30pm M-F, keeping all of our assumptions the same (i.e., Service Level, AHT, Total Call Volume).  We are assuming that 100% of the callers that would normally call between 4:30-6pm will call back at another time between 8am-4:30pm.  This may not be the case but for this analysis we are following this assumption.

With the reduction in hours and all other assumptions constant, should the staffing requirement go up, down, or stay the same and why? 

Answer: Your first assumption is that the same call volume will occur but just be stuffed into shorter hours of operation.  Given that you may not have a totally captive audience for your offerings, that may be an heroic assumption.  For example, if I want to rent a car and call one company but they aren’t available, I’m likely to call someone else right then since convenience trumps brand loyalty in my car rental decision.  But if I’m calling about wrecking my car, I’ll need to talk to my insurance company and no one else can help me.  So validate the assumption that all calls will still be there before you go to the next step.

Assuming all of the other metrics remain unchanged for service level goal and AHT, you will simply have more calls per half-hour in many periods of the day than you do now if the calls between 4:30 and 6pm are redirected to other times of day.  That pattern is hard to predict but at first it is likely to be heavily loaded in the early morning hours for those who were frustrated by no answer the last evening.  Over time, it will likely spread out a bit more for repeat callers who will come to know the new hours. 

It is likely to take fewer man-hours to do the work under the new shorter hours even if all the calls are handled.  This is a function of economies of scale.  Each period will have more calls in it but the incremental staff requirement is not 1 to 1.  In low volume hours, occupancy is lower and fewer calls per person are handled.  But in high volume periods, more calls are handled per agent and occupancy is higher even when the service level and AHT remain constant.  Of course, this means your staff will be working harder than before with less idle time between calls. (Whether that is a good situation due to high idle time today or will result in an overload with very high stress is something to consider.)

Whether shorter hours will translate into fewer FTEs is a function of your scheduling efficiency.  If you have all full time personnel, then the shorter hours may work against you since you will have to staff up for the peak hour and have more overstaffing in the valleys. This can be more easily overcome by staggering start times when the day is longer than a single shift.  But if you have a few part-time personnel to staff the peaks and cover lunches, you may find the total FTE will be lower with the new hours.  You’d need to run a set of schedules to figure it out precisely.

I hope this answered your question.  Sounds a bit like the stock answer “it depends,” but unfortunately there is no easy answer here.

Question: Our WFM team was recently in a meeting with one of our directors. He brought up an interesting issue. He had been reviewing our company’s customer surveys, and one area that we score low on is that our customers find our IVR difficult to use. He then asked our opinion of eliminating our IVR completely. What do you think about this option? And what should we consider before taking this action?
Answer: We sent this question out to several of our “wizards” and received some great ideas that should help in your situation. Here are some of the responses:

• Most everyone I know still uses an IVR, due to the complexity of the client splits and to move people to various web and speed pay options.  I think, rather than eliminating the IVR, a "re-tooling" of most IVR options and instructions would improve customer opinion.  Most are cumbersome, not well thought out, and are driven from our call center perspective and terminology vs. the client's
  perspective.  You may consider having an outside group look at those and recommend some changes.
  
  
• I think an issue to be aware of is the survey process itself.  Most organizations only survey customers that actually speak with an agent.  Making assumptions/decisions about IVR effectiveness by only using input from people that by definition were unable to get their issue resolved through self service is fraught with danger.  There are numerous reasons why customers provide negative feedback about IVRs, some simply through personal preference (the "I hate talking to machines" crowd), others because of functionality shortcomings, and yet more because of usability and poor menu construction.  The missing component here is that some portion of your call volume/customer base actually used the application (bless them...), so it is important to understand what features they use and like.  There is a growing population that does not want to talk to someone for simple transactions, they would rather use an IVR, web or web enabled device to get the information they are looking for.  

Without knowing the goals/strategy around your current IVR implementation (is it simply a call avoidance tool, or as alluded to above, is it an essential part of your CRM and call routing strategy designed to identify customer attributes and help route them to the most qualified agent), a regular review of IVR functionality and design to insure it is helping the organization meet its goals and objectives is a best practice.

The decision to eliminate an IVR application should not be taken lightly.  Some organizations brand position dictates a “high touch, high availability” approach, however for most of the world it is a question of simple economics.  How many additional FTE would you need if CSRs now had to answer the volume offset by the IVR Resolution Rate?  In my world, that would be another two million phone calls annually and an additional $9 million in salary and benefits.

• Before you take the IVR out, you might want some experts to review their IVR menus and routing and the usage reports to determine “can this IVR be saved?”  Taking it out is a bit drastic, and several companies have found a re-design with help from a consultant who has expertise in that area has made the IVR much more effective and user-friendly. In today’s economy, getting at least some of the calls answered in the IVR would certainly be cost-effective if you can just make sure it’s set up properly.

Have a tough question?

Send it to wizard@swpp.org and we’ll try to find an answer!