Police call centre hits targets - should we cheer or be worried?

Last week, the Edinburgh Evening News reported that figures have been published to say that the police call centre at Bilston Glen has exceeded national targets (for example in terms of time to answer and the number of calls abandoned by the caller) for answering 999 calls.

Oh dear – they clearly don’t understand how dangerous having targets like this might be….

In a nutshell, whilst we’d all agree that emergency calls need to be answered quickly, the target that is in place (to answer 90% of emergency calls within 10 seconds) is at best arbitrary and at worst life threatening!

This is because setting targets like these changes the purpose of the people doing the work - effectively the focus of their work is moved from ‘do the job well’ to ‘meet the target’.

If the target is difficult to achieve, then the emergency call handlers may only be able to reach it by ‘cheating’. And they will; they will do all they can to avoid failing to meet work targets – especially if, like the call centre at Bilston Glen, they’ve been heavily criticized in the media since they opened! Don’t get me wrong, though - this isn’t because of the people – I’m sure everyone working on the phones at Bilston Glen just want to serve the public well. They just need to be allowed to!

It is imperative to a caller to 999 that their call is dealt with properly and completely, with the appropriate follow up activity delivered by the right people at the right time – not just that their call is answered quickly! After all – someone’s life could depend on it!!

On balance, whilst it’s important to understand how long callers are having to wait and how many callers hang up (after all, they are calling in an emergency, so in an ideal world we’d really like to answer all calls immediately!), they shouldn’t be a target, nor should they be the key metrics used to measure the service.

Measures like this (and others such as call volumes – offered and answered, and calls answered per call handler) help call centre managers the means to manage resource in response to volume. But they miss the most crucial aspect of service measurement: they fail to address why people call and how well (or otherwise) the call centre (or in this case the call centre and other emergency service providers) responds to that call. More worryingly, such measures do not demonstrate calls that could have been prevented.

The managers at Bilston Glen need to start listening to what their callers say, and measuring what matters to them and how well they respond to what callers say. Then and only then, will Bilston Glen become a call centre worthy of public acclaim in its local newspaper!

But will that ever happen? – This blogger remains skeptical….

The BBC - being top of the TV Ratings or measuring what matters?

The BBC along with all the other media recently received a press release from Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths (FSID) that told them "Latest findings by researchers from Bristol University . . . confirm that 'the safest place for a baby to sleep is in its own cot'. This four-year study . . . found that in half of all unexpected deaths of children in the south-west of England, babies had died sleeping with a parent or carer."

Of major concern to FSID, the release continued, was that 25% of mothers in a survey "were not persuaded that bedsharing can increase the risk of cot death”. Had the BBC actually dug a bit deeper, perhaps reviewing the research findings or speaking to medical experts that were involved in the study, they too may have not been convinced either!

However, the BBC did not do this, rather they whipped the story up into a frenzy, reporting on its Breakfast programme that half of cot deaths are linked to bed-sharing but many parents are sceptical about the risk.

Yet within hours, Peter Fleming, one of the eminent authors of the Bristol research, was blasting the media for their misrepresentation of his research. He is reported in Friday’s Guardian as saying

"My view is that the positive message of this study is that it says don't drink or take drugs and don't smoke, particularly for breastfeeding mothers. We did not find any increased risk from bedsharing. It is a very different message from the one the media picked up. You can say that half the deaths occurred while babies slept with their parents. You could also say that half the deaths occurred while babies were alone in their cots, but I don't see anybody saying, 'Don't put your baby in a cot.'"

Yes – you read this right!! The Bristol study found that 54% of cot deaths occurred while the baby was co-sleeping with a parent. However, although the risk was very high if the parent had fallen asleep on the sofa, it was actually only significant among those in a bed if the parent had drunk more than two units of alcohol or had been taking drugs.

FSID defended their position arguing that this was too complicated and a simple message was needed (I suspect if they only had a small amount of media coverage there may be some mileage in this argument). However, the Department of Health, co-writers of the release, it could be argued, have the opportunity to spend time with mums to be and new mums, in which they could give fair and accurate information.

So why, might you ask, would the BBC, whose mission statement is “To enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain”, and has its first corporate value stated as “Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest”, seek to mislead their viewers and online readers in such a way?

Whilst their stated purpose may be to inform in an independent, impartial and honest way, clearly there is something else at play…

I wonder how the BBC manages its performance against its purpose, because from the outside looking in (and being sick to death of “Strictly Come Dancing” being rammed down my throat morning, noon & night), it would appear that they measure something very different… perhaps TV ratings are the key measure being focused on here. But the BBC needs to be careful – if they focus too much on being top of the TV ratings, arguably something largely unrelated to their purpose, they are in danger of creating a ‘de facto’ purpose ( for example “to be number one in TV ratings”).

Before the problem gets too far out of control, the BBC needs to find out how its employees understand their purpose and how that understanding is driving their behaviour and, hence, affecting the performance of the BBC in enriching people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain.

Whilst the press release was flawed in the key message it pushed forward, the media, particularly the BBC were negligent in their reporting. The BBC must learn to measure what matters to its viewers so it can really be considered to be “independent, impartial and honest” – but until then, this blogger remains sceptical about everything she sees in the media due to the same old issues of confusing correlation with cause, together with selective attention....

Making outsourcing work by measuring what matters.

The Telegraph Business Club this week published research by payroll & HR outsourcers HR Access that argues that outsourcing specific skills and services carries a risk and therefore demands the business decision maker takes their time, does due-diligence, appoints the ‘right’ supplier and ensure they undertake regular performance reviews.

You might think that this appears to be sound advice – but when you dig a bit deeper, what they’re recommending could really harm the client company. For when you look closely, you find that the research doesn’t recommend developing and implementing and effective mechanism whereby the two companies work together. Rather, the research recommends that the outsourced operation is managed from a distance by senior people under the terms of a contract (with regularly reviews of a set of relevant service indicators or KPIs).

I guess the thinking behind these KPIs is well intended - it would seem sensible for companies planning to outsource parts of their business to document at length what is required of the outsourced provider so that there is a contractual obligation to deliver a clearly-understood minimum acceptable level of service for the company within defined and agreed cost parameters.

Unfortunately, though, it is rare that KPIs achieve what they set out to. For example, in my sector, the call centre industry, complaints can be rife, even when an outsourcer is meeting their KPIs: it doesn’t take a genius to work out that this can result in an adverse impact on the bottom line, as well as lots of unhappy customers (whether those customers are internal staff members or paying customers of the business)!

This is ironically because the problem lies with the very KPIs that are put in place by the company to ensure their outsourced provider delivers a quality, efficient service on their behalf! Regrettably, the KPIs aren’t linked to the needs or wants of the customer (internal or external) which the outsourced operation exists to serve. KPIs measure things that are of little consequence to the individual customer, (for example in a call centre environment, this could be call durations or average abandoned rates), and force the managers and team leaders of the outsourced provider to focus on productivity – to demonstrate to their client that they’re delivering a quality service and value for money.

Before taking steps to put in place KPIs, companies should pause to think, take stock and consider how they can develop a longer term, more customer centric approach to their outsourced relationships. By encouraging their outsourced provider to create and use measures that help them understand customer needs and how to improve meeting them, a company can really make a difference –in fact they can enable their outsourced provider to deliver world class service on their behalf!

In summary, companies may feel they need the security afforded by KPIs to protect them against ineffective outsourced providers. Unfortunately, such KPIs tend to achieve the reverse of the desired outcome, and the natural response by many companies is to fight their outsourced provider contractually.

However, there is a better way: company and outsourced provider working together as partners, to deliver an optimal quality service, is the most cost-effective and sensible way to run an outsourced relationship. Furthermore, by listening to what their customers say, and measuring what matters to them, an outsourced service provider won’t go far wrong!

Who thinks National Rail Enquiries needs a new call centre outsourcer?

On the same day that we hear that BT are bringing back over 2000 jobs from India, Ventura have announced that more than 100 posts at its National Rail Enquiries centre in Yorkshire would be transferred to India for "financial reasons".

It’s so bizarre, it beggars belief – in December 2003, Ventura announced they were moving the National Rail Enquires service from Yorkshire to Bombay in the summer of 2004, amid public fury and demands for the then Transport Secretary Alistair Darling to intervene.

From that time, we all heard (and some of us even experienced) crazy stories about duff advice given by well meaning and long suffering call centre agents in the Indian Subcontinent who simply didn’t have the local knowledge a UK based adviser would have… I wonder how much additional, unnecessary demand that generated for a busy helpline?

This continued and came to a head in autumn 2007, when consumer group Which reported their findings of a mystery shopping exercise they did which demonstrated that misinformation & poor advice meant that customers could be paying well over the odds for their tickets! By the time we got to spring 2008, the media was reporting that the tide in outsourcing was turning back onshore – with Lloyds TSB and National Rail Enquiries cited as having reduced their customer-contact presence in India.

It is now beyond comprehension that a little over a year on, Ventura would be doing yet another u-turn on the very day that even BT is bringing jobs back to the UK.

On their “Facebook” page, National Rail Enquiries state that their telephone service is one of the busiest telephone numbers in the United Kingdom. They quote all manner of interesting statistics, including the following:

Number of calls offered: 16,058,777
Number of calls answered: 15,153,487
Percentage of calls answered (PCA): 94.4% (meaning they missed nearly a million calls!)
Average time to answer calls (ATTA): 21 seconds

They also say that they monitor quality using mystery shopping (99.29% of calls answered “correctly”) and customer satisfaction surveys (90% customers would recommend National Rail Enquiries to family and friends).

Blimey! Look at that last statistic a different way, and what they’re really saying is that 10% of people wouldn’t recommend them!!

This can’t be good for anyone, so the challenge to National Rail Enquiries is find a call centre outsourcer that has a better way of doing things - delivering quality more efficiently to compete with offshore locations.

This blogger knows one – do you?

Beating boredom at work - why the role of managers must change!!

This month’s edition of the Chartered Management Institute’s publication, Professional Manager includes an article on boredom in the workplace (http://www.managers.org.uk/client_files/PM%20July%2009%20boredom.pdf).

In the article, Dr Sandi Mann discusses how changes in the world of work, such as the introduction of new working practices like call centres have increased employee boredom – citing that repetition, restricted autonomy & a lack of job control due to “robotisation” and scripting are major factors in the high levels of staff turnover in the industry.

Mann notes the irony that as companies strive more and more to control staff output in order to drive down costs, in spite of the fact that this can severely damage the organisation financially and reputationally because it causes poor work performance, absenteeism, stress-related health problems and job dissatisfaction.

The article goes on to suggest various solutions, including empowerment of staff and elimination of standardisation in the work, arguing sensibly that the cost savings to be made could balance any training needs.

However, this blogger thinks the solution needs to go much deeper, to really get to the heart of the purpose of management.

The current operating model in most organisations (and that which is so prevalent in the dreaded call centre!) is that managers exist to police the work that staff do – ensuring they achieve their set (numerical) targets and conform to procedures & scripts…

Yet what managers really need to do is to optimise their team’s efforts to achieve business aims whilst recognising and understanding individual differences, strengths and interests & the benefits of co-operation and losses of competition.

Instead of encouraging a culture of blame, where everyone conforms, managers need to create trust and an environment in which freedom & innovation flourish.

Then and only then can organisations become truly successful (and have staff that are empowered, with high job control, and doing an effective job)!!

Customer service - arrogance or ignorance? You choose.

BT, British Gas, Sky, Virginmedia & Vodafone were named and shamed this week in the findings of a survey of 5000 people across the UK into their views about 30 companies with call centres. Other major corporates featuring in the survey report include HSBC, AOL, Barclays, O2 and HMRC.

There are no real surprises when it comes to what people complained about - "the language barrier" and "call centres based abroad" were identified as one of the most infuriating aspects of call centres. And consumers said they hated the use of automated systems and having to answer numerous security questions as well as being passed from pillar to post and needing to repeat themselves.

There were no good guys coming out of the survey, either – banks and retailers seemed to come out just as bad as the communications and utility companies! But BT really took the top prize – the survey found that BT was almost twice as bad as second place British Gas when dealing with issues and complaints, even being accused of leaving callers on hold or struggling to get through its automated system to make complaints. And BT came top for longest holding times, with 18% of people complaining about the company!!.

The managing director of BT's consumer division was quick to dismiss the findings of the survey as “twaddle”, explaining that BT’s own “extensive surveys” demonstrated customers were far more satisfied! He even went on to brag that "the time it takes BT customers to get through to an adviser has dropped by 65 per cent over the last year and is now 32 seconds on average.” And that "customer complaints have reduced by over 40 per cent in the last year.”

Blimey – if they think that’s good, how bad was their service last year!

Unfortunately, however, as we can see from this survey, BT is not in isolation in the customer service hall of shame…

Maybe it’s time the senior people in responsible for the dire state of service offered by call centres became aware of what really matters to their customers’ and encouraged their call centre managers to focus on serving the customers they exist to look after instead of managing staff targets, using fantastic new technology to deflect their calls or sending calls to offshore call centres just to save a few quid.

But such a fundamental mindshift would take a strong, confident and magnanimous leader – after all, they’d have to admit they got it wrong, before they could improve things.

So, this blogger wonders if the repeated denial of any problem is a sign of corporate arrogance or corporate ignorance… or even worse, a bit of both?

The Observer needs Caulking!

After 16 years this week's column in The Observer by Management Editor Simon Caulkin was the last. I understand this is a decision made by management at The Observer as a cost-cutting measure…

If you’ve never read Simon’s brilliant yet appropriate and relevant column, then you really don’t know what you’ve been missing! Simon has written about ideas this blogger holds dear – indeed his column has been a must for anyone who understands that traditional management ways of thinking have largely created the mess the economy is in! His column has always been a refreshing and insightful read that appealed yet was relevant across the political spectrum, both public and private sectors, as well as different industries.

I am dismayed and disappointed by The Observer's bizarre decision to axe this column. And I’m not alone in my thinking… over the last weekend, over 50 distinguished signatories (including little old me!) gathered to produce not just a letter of protest to the powers that be at The Observer, but also an earnest recommendation that they reinstate Simon’s column as a matter of urgency!

The letter, signed by a diverse group - ranging from entrepreneurs, SMEs, management consultancies, large corporations, academia and renowned authors across the globe was sent to the editorial team at The Observer this morning and we await their response.

In the meantime, we’ve set up groups named “The Observer needs Caulking!” on both Facebook and LinkedIn.

This column must continue. Please show your support by joining these groups and posting your comments for all to see!