Revision as of 13:50, 7 May 2015

1 Overview

Quality Assurance is a broad and challenging area of any operation. Whether examining by interaction or by case (multiple interactions) there are a number of key objectives:

• To deliver against compliance
• To hit service levels
• To exceed customer expectations
• To find ways of improving customer interaction

2 Starting Point

2.1 Need

Philip Lacey defines quality as "the objective measurement of a subjective need." So with this definition we find the reason we are performing quality. Quality programs are put in place to ensure that

• A clients contractual requirements are delivered
• A legal requirement is complied with
• A customers preferred experience is consistently delivered

2.2 Focus

The quality of program will need to have scope applied. Will the quality checking focus on

• a single interaction (one phone call)
• a case (a number of interactions all centred around a single common thread)
• a process (the production or manufacture of something which has a measurable output, i.e. the production of a chocolate bar)

2.3 Questionnaire

At this point we have a need and we have a focus, to this we add a questionnaire. The questionnaire is the suite of questions which can be used to ensure that the desired output with checks along the way, has been achieved.

2.4 Scope

There can be numerous questionnaire's for one part of a process or for different stages and aspects of the process. The more granular the scope of the questionnaire, the more that needs to be done, however the higher the chance of delivering the desired outcome through repeated monitoring and correction.

2.5 Grouping

With these ideas in mind, it is possible to compile a list of questions to check if those requirements have indeed been delivered.

Within any questionnaire there are a number of considerations in its construction. Taking a simple example of phone call there are at a minimum, three groups to that questionnaire might be identified • The opening • The process • The closing

Within each of these groups there will be questions, all related to the group. Intelligent grouping allows for further analysis of specific groups later on, rather than just an overall score. i.e. is the whole call failing or is just one aspect of the call failing. Section Groups are exceptionally useful tools for grouping scores. To set one up there is information available from Form_Section_Group

Groups allow for more focused revision of areas and can allow drill down into trending to be more specific. As a worked example, our QA form has the above sections Opening, Process and Closing

When an assessment is scored, there is an overall score of for example 75%. Being able to focus on where most of the marks are lost is why section groups can be so important. So if we got 0% for the opening 50% for the process and 25% for the closing, we know that the focus then needs to be on the "opening".

2.6 Preparation and iterative review

So with the above concepts in mind to prepare to build a quality assurance program, we sit down and

1. Need:
2. Focus:
3. Questionnaire:
   1. Section 1:
      1. Question 1.1
      2. Question 1.2
      3. Question 1.3
   2. Section 2:
      1. Question 2.1
      2. Question 2.2
      3. Question 2.3
   3. Section 3:
      1. Question 3.1
      2. Question 3.2
      3. Question 3.3

Using this questionnaire then allow it to be cycled between all of the stakeholders for review to ensure that all views of the questionnaire are included. Different perspectives can lead to vastly improving questions and this process also helps to improve operational buy in.

2.7 Weighting

Now with all of the questions identified it is possible to add weight to each of the questions. As a result three types of questions can be identified:

• A standard question
• A critical fail question
• A classification field

A standard question is given a weighting based on how important that question is to the rest of the questionnaire. It is not vital that all the scores add up to 100%, bxp compensates for percentage totals. It is far more important that scores reflect the importance of the question.

A critical fail question is usually a key component question that shouldn't give any extra score to the questionnaire. i.e. was the basic data protection rules followed? If yes, then the basic process was followed. If No then something seriously wrong has occurred. In this case bxp supports the key word Fail. Fail allows for scores to remain consistently high, but will flag the critical error to allow for immediate correction.

A classification field allows for a non-scoring field to be included but allows grouping and classification of scored records after the QA has been scored. Examples include: type of call, line called in on, duration of call. these are examples of classifications which do not necessarily affect the score of the QA but can help in classification reports afterwards.

2.8 Supporting Material

For each of the question above there needs to be training / supporting material to explain / demonstrate how that process should be done correctly. This material allows both assessors and people being assessed to understand what is expected as part of this question. This process of developing material can also help to highlight further questions and will throw up discrepancies in process approach.

This stage also allows for collaborative contribution between operations, training and quality teams as all can work on the supporting material.

The final check is to ensure that you have supporting material which adequately explains what is expected for each question.

3 Create

At this point there is enough material to build a thorough QA form. bxp comes with a complete manual to describe how to build a QA form

• CC-1-3 Introduction to the Blended Form Structure
• QA-1-3 Introduction to QA Form Structure

At this stage of the process it is now possible to build your entire QA form including:

• Classification question types
• Section Groups
• Questions with weighting
• Questions with critical fails
• Associate training material with each questions to ensure consistency

With the primary homework done it should take approximately one hour to completely build an entire QA form with all features fully enabled.

What remains to do is to understand the options available in each of the CLAPS phases. These are detailed in the training documentation with further descriptive information below.

3.1 Reference and Training Material

From a very early stage it is possible to leverage contributions from a number of departments in helping to build a complete quality program and reduce work for those departments.

Each question within a Form can have an internal link to eCourse reference material or an external link to a website or network drive document. Associating each question with key training material allows Training, Operations, Legal and Quality to all contribute to the documentation of perfect process support material.

As a worked example: Operations has a document describing how a process is to be performed. The process is created in an eCourse page and linked to a question in the QA form. Legal are supplied with the link and can contribute to refine how the process works. This document now serves as perfect base material on which to base training and give team leaders and managers perfect guidance on how the process is to be performed.

As any department can contribute the improvement of the process:

• Repeating work is removed (Training and Operations don't have separate versions to maintain)
• A single central authorised version is created
• The latest version is always available to everyone
• There is an audit trail of its use
• There is an audit trail of its modification
• It can contribute greatly to the achievement and maintenance of ISO standards such as ISO 27001 and ISO 9001.
• It can be used as a selling point by a Business Process Outsourcer to demonstrate to a client their value add

3.2 Calibration

Calibration is the term usually used to test assessors to ensure that they all grade consistently across all their assessments. Before assessing begins, assessors are given the same material to review and their scoring is reviewed to ensure they are consistent. This is possible using bxp as the central form for capturing responses.

If however the above centralised Reference and Training Material model is used, calibration becomes exceptionally easy to perform as assessors are given model answers against which to base their assessments. Any ambiguity in interpretation of the meaning of the processes and procedures then leads to improved documentation for all the other departments. The model completes the virtuous circle that QA should be able to provide to any process by giving expert feedback to improve processes overall rather than as a simple checking mechanism.

4 Load

There are a number of strategies possible through bxp. The traditional QA approach of just adding records as an assessment is to be done does not provide QA managers with much visibility as to what is left to do. bxp allows this thinking to be changed.

As per 2.3.5.2 in QA-1-3

The Preloaded approach sees that X assessments are loaded into form before any assessment is performed. This ensures that there is a X amount of assessments per person.

The Injected approach (flagged as “Input”), allows assessors to add an assessment as required. For management purposes this can be more difficult to manage even amounts of samples but does allow the QA to be performed as needed.

Preloaded allows assessments to be loaded from

• The organogram structure within bxp
• Records from another form in bxp
• An Excel spreadsheet

Injected is the traditional approach.

If assessments are preloaded then an accurate picture of what remains to be done can be reported.

There are numerous combinations and operational approaches possible with the loading engine. Finding an approach that suits your business will be dependent on

• who does the assessments
• how often the assessments need to be done
• the accepted approach from those doing the assessments

5 Assign

This next stage again is a new extension of the way in which QA can be performed. Injected remains the traditional approach, of adding records by assessor as the assessor performs the task.

With the new loading approach, work can now be distributed far more easily and there are three primary strategies to this approach.

• First Come
• Equal Distribution - All
• PreLoaded

These new strategies open the way for improvements:

• Team Leaders to assess other teams members for objectivity
• For assessment to be outsourced
• For improved work balancing across assessors
• To compensate for when assessors are sick / unavailable to complete their work
• Objectivity to be introduced in assessment assignment

5.1 First Come

This allows an assessor to click to request the next assessment to be performed. This approach offers the simplest distribution. Click to get the next assessment to be performed.

5.2 Equal Distribution - All

The approach uses the same delivery method as First Come, but it limits the assessments to X assessments per assessor. In First Come efficient employees could do more assessments than others. Equal Distribution - All ensures that set amounts of assessments are distributed equally amongst all.

It is possible to mass reassign assessments if an assessor becomes unavailable to complete their assessments.

5.3 PreLoaded

PreLoaded means that whatever assignment allocations were specified in the loaded Excel sheet will be used. This allows for completely custom allocation patterns. It is also possible to mass reassign assessments using this methodology.

6 Perform

For any of the PreLoaded types assessors use : Main Menu > Quality Assurance > Approach 1 - Perform an Assessment > Perform an assessment > Choose the Form

If using the Injected approach then assessors use : Main Menu > Quality Assurance > Approach 2 - Provide an Assessment > Add an assessment > Choose the Form

It is possible for a manager of the QA program at any time to get a complete picture of where everything currently is and to whom work is assigned. Main Menu > Form Management > Form - Primary Management > Form - Edit > Choose the QA form > From the console on the left choose Review Assignment >

This includes a count of what's done and what is to do.

6.1 Scoring

In bxp the scoring mechanism provides a number of key advantages to the delivery of a QA program.

The scoring is not shown to the assessor. This is to remove bias and rounding, where an assessor might round up a score to get it "over the line", or round down as an assessment looks too good.

The scoring in bxp can be adjusted after go live and mass re-scoring of assessments can be performed.

When an assessment is reviewed, each Section Group, is also scored separately as well.

When designing QA programs in the past, it was common place to require the score to add up to 100% for convenience and ease of configuration. bxp removes this requirement. Scores are calculated to appropriate percentages automatically.

Most importantly when the score is calculated is that the engine does not require all answers to be provided. Going through a worked example to explain this. Say for example an Insurance company is running a QA on their sales line. They have an opening section, a home insurance section, a car insurance section and a closing section. The QA is performed on a home insurance call. In order to keep the scoring fair, where a Not Applicable answer applied, i.e. the car insurance section, then full marks had to be given to get the scores to balance.

• Opening : 25 points
• Home : 25 points
• Car : 25 points
• Closing : 25 points

If a 0 points score was given to car, then the score would be 75% not 100%. So Yes / No / NA would be scored 25 / 0 / 25. This skews the overall average.

bxp QA forms do not need N/A answers. If left blank no score is added and the total score adjusted to compensate for the no answer. This means scores are generated only on questions that apply to that type of QA. This also ensures that Section Grouped trend reports are not skewed from non-applicable QA assessments.

6.2 Outright Fails

The largest skew of a score was seen in Outright Fails. A key question in the form is usually around Data Protection or an applicable Law. When these questions appeared previously they would be weighted for example at -100. This again skews scoring and leads to poor training focus. Again to use a worked example, there is a sample key question "Was Data Protection adhered to?" Yes = 0 points. They should do this. No = -100 points. A no would cause an instant fail. It does however invalidate all the good work that was done on the call.

bxp splits Score and Threshold. A score could be a percentage. The pass mark could be 85%. The threshold is a pass or fail, depending on if the calculated score is above or below the pass mark. The threshold is a key word of Pass or Fail.

Now in bxp, it is possible to use the word Fail instead of the -100 score. Then engine will treat the work fail as a 0. If however the score is above the pass mark and a Fail score is achieved the overall score will remain high, but the Threshold will be a fail. Outright fails have a number of key benefits:

• Section scores are not skewed with massively negatively weighted scores
• Outright fails can be instantly tracked and dealt with
• Overall representation of the quality of delivery is more accurately reflected
• Training can be focused more appropriately on actual weak sections rather than averaged weak sections

7 Support

Once the assessments have been performed being able to address areas of weakness is vital, or it renders the entire QA process pointless. Support can come in many forms. The more focused the support can be the greater the operational benefit.

• Reduced time spent by the training department, in repeating non-relevant information
• Reduced time spent by operations, in redelivering well documented material
• Reduced time spent by quality in chasing up has support been provided

In order to do this, more focused information must be provided which bxp does automatically.

7.1 Trend Reporting

Trend reporting in bxp allows instant deep dive information with layered reporting to show how an individual, team, department and organisation as a whole are doing on the same report. The reports are available at team leader and general reporting level.

The same reporting engine can quickly show an individual against all

And very quickly then include team or departmental trending as well

Section groups can be instantly analysed in the same manner through the same interface, making customised deep dive reporting far simple and visually more effective for all users.

7.2 Status Reporting

Sometimes applying scores to results is not possible through Union or other contractual relationships. bxp can represent the results as collective results without applying any scoring at all. Status reports provide simple counts without the individual focus that comes with performance management. Visualisation_-_Quality_-_Current_Status_report

7.3 Coaching

Coaching is the process of sitting down side by side with the assessments to go through them to provide feedback and deliver corrective action. bxp can provide a full management tool to deliver coaching that needs to be performed and maintaining the records that they have been performed. Coaching logs are automatically associated with a user's account and can be easily reported on.

This level of reporting allows a complete view of a user to be built within bxp of all their activity and performance.

7.4 SMARTER plans

A stronger approach to coaching and development is to use the © SMARTER plans in bxp. A SMARTER plan uses the training material tied to each question. When a question gets less than a maximum score, then that questions training links are included in a custom developed training plan for that person. In this way, self-directed learning plans are self-generated and distributed as required to user. The user works through the plan. When the user has finished the revision a team leader or manager can provide the coaching. This has obvious advantages of reducing wasted time in covering existing material.

This approach also reduces / removes the need for class room training and large scale team absences as groups need to be training in a room. Personalised plans can be done throughout a day or during quiet periods.

The output of SMARTER plans can also be supplied to diallers and other intelligent work distribution mechanisms to deliver training segments between contacts during quiet periods.

For more information on SMARTER plans QA_-_SMARTER_plans

8 Transitioning from legacy tools

Moving from traditional tools such as Excel or ScoreBuddy can result in massive savings for the organisation.

Read here for our scenario of moving away from ScoreBuddy Scenario_-_bxp_-_QA_-_Moving_from_Score_Buddy

The KeyStats module plays a key role in delivering reports and reporting formats that have been used and need to continue to be used. Module_-_KeyStats

The All n One can help you through any scenario of moving away from legacy solutions.

9 Summary

bxp as a tool for Quality Assurance modelling and managed is unrivalled in its breath and cost effectiveness. Chat to All n One now about how we can improve your QA on +353 1 429 4000 or email support@allnone.ie