Goldilocks’ Guides Good Service

Goldilocks and The Three Bears taught me about call centres.

“And everyone lived happily ever after”, I concluded.

“But Dad,” my son pondered, “if the porridge was the right temperature, could Goldilocks have finished and escaped before the bears got home?”

“Maybe. But some people prefer hotter porridge, and some prefer colder porridge. We all have unique preferences.”

Something in my head clicked.

Call centres face a difficult conflict. On one hand they must minimise costs, which means incentivising agents to keep calls short - because shorter calls means each agent can handle more calls in a given period.

On the other hand, call centres must satisfy customers, which means *not* incentivising agents to keep calls short - because each customer and issue is unique, so the time needed per call will vary.

So, the conflict: do we limit call length, or not?

Every conflict can be evaporated by finding an invalid assumption behind either side of the argument.

John Seddon coined the term ‘Failure Demand’, which represents the avoidable work ‘caused by a failure to do something or do something right for the customer’. Failure demand consumes 50% of capacity in most organisations.

Incentivising call centre agents to keep calls short means customers are likely to need to call back several times to resolve any one issue. After all, each customer and issue is unique - much like our porridge preferences.

So, whilst the assumption that incentivising shorter calls may mean each agent can handle more calls, this assumption also leads to more calls needing to be handled in the first place. Thus, more agents needed, more costs - and dissatisfied customers.

The alternative? Seddon concludes “by chasing efficiency (managing costs) we undermine effectiveness (and drive up costs). […] As effectiveness – achievement of purpose in customer terms [...] improves, costs fall.”

What is the ‘purpose in customer terms’ of a call centre? Resolving issues on first contact - no handoffs or callbacks.

And, what if agents and managers were instead incentivised to resolve issues on first contact? Call volumes drop (in the form of failure demand), costs reduce, and customer satisfaction increases. Managers would ensure agents have all they need to solve issues on first contact, increasing staff satisfaction. Conflict evaporated, everybody wins.

The takeaway? Debug assumptions for Happily Ever Afters.

NB: This article was inspired by Heath’s “Reset”, Seddon’s “Beyond Command and Control”, and talks with Noah Cantor.