Scenario - bxp to create Quality Assurance programs

1 Overview

Quality Assurance is a broad and challenging area of any operation. Whether examining by call 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

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 product 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

• The opening
• The process
• The closing

Within each of these groups there will be questions, all related to the group. Inelligent 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.

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. Setion 1:
      1. Question 1.1
      2. Question 1.2
      3. Question 1.3
   2. Setion 2:
      1. Question 2.1
      2. Question 2.2
      3. Question 2.3
   3. Setion 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 perspecitves 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 questions
• A critical fail
• 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 assessees 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

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 Grouping

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 following sections

• Opening
• Process
• 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 "opening".

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 dependant 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 Managment > 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.