The need for trainers will obviously vary with the complexity of the calls being handled and the amount of agent turnover. Across industries, the ratio of trainers to call center agents is one trainer to every fifty agents.
Wendy, every study we have done on agent retention indicates that a well-designed nesting program coming out of training has a very substantial impact on lowering turnover...in several case reducing it by over 50%.
--Dr. Jon
To answer your first question:
There is no "silver bullet" formula for setting realistic IVR baseline objectives. The best way is to benchmark your companies performance against a peer group of companies....this is what BenchmarkPortal does in detail.
Concerning the second part of your question:
Very interesting data. I am sure we can improve substantially on the granularity of these results. I suggest you establish phone contact with Susan Hampton who can arrange for a telephone conference call with my team.
-Dr. Jon Anton
Answered 02/14/05
Stacy,
Great question.
The answer does vary quite a bit depending on the industry you're in.
For the financial services industry, which includes banking, the average on-going training for existing agents is 4 hours. In this number is included the time that monitored calls are reviewed by the front-line supervisor which is often considered both coaching and continuing education for the agent. Formal classroom training on a monthly basis is not tracked by our system.
Hope this helps.
Jon
Richard,
For the time and attendance tool, I am not able to give you a specific company. However, all the major journals, like Call Center Magazine, Customer Interaction Magazine, and others have annual vendor issues listing all companies and their products in our space.
Regarding the training effectiveness tools, I would recommend you contact Knowlagent. They are a leader in this space.
Hope this helps.
Dr. Jon
To make your decision, I suggest that you ask the vendors the following questions: Was this learning system designed by experts in the field? Was the content developed specifically for call centers? Has it been proven to produce measurable results? Does the learning process offer realistic, relevant and challenging caller simulations? Can the learning be tailored to a participant's varied learning needs and preferences? Can you adapt and expand content to meet new training priorities? Does it identify each agent's needs and does it confirm that all participants achieved the targeted learning? Most importantly, has the learning design and content been scientifically shown to improve agent call performance and to be a cost-effective alternative to classroom training?
From our database, supervisors spend 58% of their time on average monitoring and coaching. This varies considerably by industry and in particular by the function of the call center.
Our data indicates that supervisors spend, on average, 58% of their time monitoring and coaching agents. This does vary somewhat by industry and the function of the call center.
--Dr. Jon
We have tested computer-based training and simulation as a learning technique for agents, and have found it to be both efficient and effective.
Ulysses Training and Simtrex are two of the best in the business. Check www.callcenter magazine.com/product-info for more details and other suppliers.
In general, call centers report that they allocate initial agent training into the following categories including the respective percentage of total training time spent on each category: product knowledge (30%), administrative procedures (20%), telephone techniques (20%), and screen navigation (10%).
There's a tendency to focus on the technology of computer-based training (CBT) and Web-based training (WBT). Will the software run on our computers? Is it buggy? Will my people find it easy to use? These are obviously important questions, but you can't stop there. You must also evaluate the design and content of the courseware offered by the vendor. I suggest you talk to other users; look for tangible results, such as better performance from agents and less time in classroom training.
Our data shows that 10% or less of classroom training is typically conducted by internal management people, 50% to 80% by in-house specialist/trainers, and 10% to 20% by outside training professionals.
In our 1999 call center benchmark study, 41% of the participants indicated that they used CBT. The majority of the CBT applications were for product training or technical support training. Some companies reported successfully using CBT to train agents in customer service and telephone handling.
