Under-Resourcing - Case Study

Author: CCa2z

Date: 26th September 2004

Case Study

Let me describe the scene I was faced with when I moved sideways as call centre manager from the financial services, which are considered the benchmark for call centres, to the public utilities.  

What I found: 

  • 20+ calls continuously in the queue
  • No breaks in place for staff
  • 20% abandoned calls
  • Customer wait times up to 20 minutes
  • We knew staff were busy but the measures were not in place to identify occupancy levels (occupancy can be confused with inefficiency if not quantified)
  • 25% staff attrition
  • No time for communication, meetings or coaching
  • High levels of repeat calls, rework and customer complaints
  • Extremely high levels of stress 

I am afraid to say the call centre was a sweatshop at the time. 

The utility was a regional 'monopoly' water company - it was faced with price cuts required by Ofwat, the industry regulator, and was not in a position to invest in improved staff welfare and customer service. 

I presented the case to the board of directors' lead by the Chairman and Chief Executive, which at the end proved to be compelling. 

Suffice it to say, the key was around resourcing, occupancy and service level (together with some general efficiency improvements). 

First of all it was necessary to prove under resourcing.  The methods of calculating staff in a call centre differ significantly from methods used for general productivity.  Given the same hours of workload, say 20 hrs, resourcing requirements will differ between the two areas: 

Production - Required Staff Hours  =  Hours Workload  -  here, for instance in paper processing, when one piece of paperwork is completed, the next is ready and waiting.  The work is constant and, therefore, if 20 hrs of work is available in 1 hr, 20 staff will be required. 

Telephones - Required Staff Hours  >  Hours Workload - here, complexities arise, as incoming calls are not sequential, as above, but occur in a random fashion.  To assume call centre resourcing is calculated in the same manner, as production would lead to severe under staffing.  

The same 20 hrs workload in 1 hr may, within the call centre, be offered within the first 15 mins of the hour.  In call centres an hour of workload is described as an Erlang.  An hour of Erlang staffing requirements is greater than normal requirements as it builds in delays due to callers queuing. 

Many call centres resource on the production method, which is quite erroneous and the seat of many of the problems.  In many cases this is not negligence but ignorance of call centre dynamics. 

Service Level - To add to this complexity, there should be a desire to answer calls within a given service level, say x % of calls answered < y secs.  The resourcing dependency of any organisation should be aligned to its service level objective. 

If company 'A' and 'B', with similar processes/systems, resource to different service levels, then they will perform quite differently - 'A' may answer the call immediately because they have resourced to a high service level (say 90% of calls answered < 5 secs, yet 'B' may take an age to answer as they have resourced to a low service level (say 90% of calls answered < 40 secs.  (Low service levels mean caller delay, continuous calls for staff due to calls in the queue, no wait times between calls and, of course, high occupancy). 

So in a call centre, we cannot merely say we receive 'x' calls therefore we need 'y' staff, we must also define our service level target. 

Occupancy (utilisation) - reflects how busy we are and in call centres, we are busy when we are talking to callers and when completing after call work when the caller has gone.  The busier we are per hour, the higher the occupancy and lower the available time, waiting for a call.  With 20+ calls in a queue at the utility, calls were continuous for staff; occupancy was very high, coupled with no comfort breaks or wait time between calls.  

The outcome was that the utility recruited an additional 50 full time equivalent staff to address the issues raised - at a cost of over one million pounds for both people and facilities - which brought agent occupancy down to manageable levels and greatly improved customer service.  This is to the credit of the board of directors.  In 1997 the utility stood as one of the poorest providers of telephone service in the water industry, yet within 12 months it was one of the top three providers. 

One of the most pleasing achievements for me was to have received commendation from the staff UNISON council, in recognition of the achievements for the call centre staff, their welfare and working conditions.  

Now, if the board of this utility, a company just outside the FTSE 100, a major public utility, were oblivious to call centre dynamics and requirements, then it goes without saying, so many more companies must be. 

I needed to be a champion of the people first and customers, second, as I knew good customer service would flow from good treatment and conditions for staff. (CCM)


Share this
email this page to a friend print this page