Submitted by:
Penny Reynolds
Call Center Workforce Consultant
815 Vaughan Road Clarksville, TN 37043 USA
615-812-8410
ICBC Call Center Workforce Review
Prepared On Behalf of:
The Canadian Office and Professional
Employees Union 378
(COPE 378)
December 2014
C3-8
Table of Contents
Executive Overview Study Objectives 4 Assessment Approach 4 Results of Analysis 5 Staffing Requirements 8 Conclusions 20 Detailed Report Study Objectives 22 Assessment Approach 23 Results of Analysis 30 Forecasts 30 Staff Requirements 33 Staffing Scenarios 35 Stakeholder Impact 36 Customers 36 Employees 43 Senior Management 45Conclusions and Recommendations 48
Executive Overview
Study Objective
In August 2014, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) filed a rate increase for its policyholders. ICBC’s call center employees represented by the Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union 378 (COPE 378) took this opportunity to file Matters of Interest documents related to the operation of the contact center serving ICBC policyholders.
The evidence on the record of this proceeding shows that call volumes have steadily increased over time, and a Claims Transformation project undertaken in the recent past has caused handle times to increase substantially. These increases in both call volume and call handle times have added a substantial workload burden for the center. However, the management team has elected not to increase staff to correspond to the increased workload. The result has been a severe understaffing situation that has resulted in very long wait times for callers, high caller abandonment rates, diminished service capacity, and long-standing unreasonably high workload for the staff.
This study was commissioned by COPE as an outside, independent review of call center workforce planning and management. The review is designed to assess the overall workload of the call center, including the patterns and trends associated with business factors including but not limited to the Claims Transformation Project. This analysis provides calculations of appropriate staffing levels for the center based on ICBC’s established service goals for policyholders as well as reasonable staff occupancy levels. A comparison of actual staffing to required staffing is provided that shows the implications from a service, occupancy, and cost perspective.
Assessment Approach
Workforce management is an art and a science where call history and business drivers are analyzed to predict future call volume, handle times, and patterns of work. A workload prediction by month, day, and half-hour is then used to determine staffing requirements to meet speed of answer service goals. This base “bodies in chairs” staffing requirement is then adjusted to account for staff shrinkage (necessary paid unproductive time) and other scheduling considerations to arrive at an overall schedule requirement and FTE count.
This workforce review was performed using ICBC-provided data from the Aspect workforce management software system. This data provides a forecast workload number (based on call and handle time predictions) along with a planned staff number. The analysis reviewed the forecasts and staffing projections compared to actual staffing that was in place. The Aspect reports show actual service level numbers for the study period, along with other service-related data such as abandoned call volumes and percentages. As part of the staffing analysis, staffing calculations were independently done to verify staff requirements. This staffing analysis involved using industry-standard Erlang staffing calculations to arrive at actual staff requirements, as well as to show the “what-if” results if staff numbers were not in place as planned. These Erlang C calculations were used to arrive at service level, average speed of answer (ASA), and occupancy numbers to be expected with ICBC’s actual staff in place.
Analysis Results
Arriving at the right number of staff to provide acceptable service levels while balancing costs begins with a workload forecast. Call volumes and handle times from past history are analyzed to predict future workload, taking into account any relevant business factors. Over the last two years, there was a gradual increase and upward trend in call center contact volume, as well as a major increase in call handle times caused by two business drivers – the Claims Hierarchy project and the ClaimCenter transformation.
The actual call volumes and handle times from 2012 – 2014 are shown on the following pages. These actual numbers were compared to forecast call volumes and forecast handle times to first examine the accuracy of the forecasting process at ICBC. There was very little variance between the forecast and actual requirement numbers, showing that the workforce team at ICBC performed this part of the workforce planning process very well. The understaffing that has occurred over the past two years was apparently not a result of bad forecasting, but rather staffing decisions that were made. The Aspect IntraDay Performance (IDP) reports show Forecast versus Actual Requirements with variances between the two in a reasonable range. It is the difference between the Actual Requirements and the Actual Scheduled Staff where there is an alarming variance – what was required for service delivery compared to actual scheduled staff.
Month-to-Month Workload
Numbers are provided below that show the overall workload increases during the study period. Workload is calculated by multiplying the number of calls (NCO) by the average handle time (AHT). The first table shows month-by-month comparisons of the number of calls offered (NCO) and the second table shows AHT patterns. Note the steady increases in both from 2012 to 2013 to 2014.
(Note: Data supplied only complete through October 2014)
Exhibit 1A: Number of Calls Offered 2012-2014
Number of Calls Offered
Month 2012 2013 2014 Jan 66950 72767 78127 Feb 59378 55323 71008 Mar 61443 61237 72085 Apr 58784 68945 73024 May 65730 75205 85413 June 62488 72381 85649 July 69805 81074 93905 Aug 71332 74307 84210 Sep 65491 72651 81828 Oct 73825 74713 77066 Nov 70615 78086 Dec 70344 78291 Total Calls 796185 864980 802315
Exhibit 1B: Number of Calls Offered 2012-2014
50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 85,000 90,000 95,000 100,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Number of Calls Offered
2012 2013 2014
Exhibit 2A: Average Handle Time 2012-2014
Average Handle Time
Month 2012 2013 2014 Jan 868 857 1,095 Feb 875 847 1,219 Mar 896 876 1,160 Apr 976 979 1,152 May 979 1,008 1,404 Jun 916 1,030 1,456 Jul 956 1,041 1,396 Aug 932 1,030 1,348 Sep 923 1,047 1,269 Oct 866 1,041 1,164 Nov 853 1,100 Dec 894 1,157 Grand Total 910 1,008 1,274
Exhibit 2B: Average Handle Time 2012-2014
As seen above, call handle times have increased substantially over time. While there have been some decreases in the AHT in recent months, the numbers are still well above 2012 levels and remain above 2013 levels as well.
These two components of call volume and handle time are multiplied together as the base calculation of staff workload. The following table and graph show the calculation of staff workload (NCO x AHT) by month. Workload is expressed as hours of work.
800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Average Handle Time
2012 2013 2014
Exhibit 3A: Call Workload Table 2012-2014 Call Workload Month 2012 2013 2014 Jan 16137 17327 23762 Feb 14430 13014 24042 Mar 15288 14907 23231 Apr 15930 18743 23360 May 17867 21065 33307 June 15900 20708 34637 July 18538 23441 36410 Aug 18475 21256 31526 Sep 16791 21119 28841 Oct 17763 21597 24916 Nov 16738 23857 Dec 17467 25159 Workload 201324 242194 284032
Exhibit 3B: Call Workload Graph
In addition to the steady increase in workload over time, there are several notable changes in the data outlined above. The Claims Hierarchy project rolled out in April 2013 and there is a corresponding significant jump in workload beginning in May 2013. The next sizable jump in workload occurs November 2013 with the rollout of ClaimCenter. While an increase in calls does occur steadily over time, the major change in workload is due to the increased time required to handle calls.
12,000 17,000 22,000 27,000 32,000 37,000 42,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Call Workload
2012 2013 2014
Staffing Requirements
This increase in workload would indicate a corresponding increase in staffing levels. The table below shows the following for each month:
Actual Workload Hours (NCO x AHT)
Required WFM Workload Hours
(includes Erlang C staffing adjustment plus 10% unproductive time)
Required FTE
Actual Scheduled FTE
FTE Variance
Exhibit 4A: Monthly Staff Hours and FTE Requirements 2012
Actual Workload Hours Required Workload Hours Actual Required FTE Actual Scheduled FTE FTE Variance 2012 Jan 16,137 19,718 119 120 2 Feb 14,430 17,768 107 113 6 Mar 15,288 18,670 112 116 4 Apr 15,930 19,245 116 110 -6 May 17,867 21,711 131 122 -9 June 15,900 19,348 117 118 2 July 18,538 22,337 135 116 -19 Aug 18,475 22,280 134 117 -17 Sep 16,791 20,300 122 113 -9 Oct 17,763 21,436 129 125 -4 Nov 16,738 20,295 122 121 -1 Dec 17,467 21,063 127 111 -16 Total 2012 201,324 244,171 123 117 -6
As seen in the table above, in 2012, staffing was just a bit under the needed numbers. For the most part, staffing was satisfactory and caused service level to remain fairly stable and in the range of the 80%/100 second target.
With the rollout of Claims Hierarchy and ClaimCenter in 2013, staffing needs rose dramatically and were not filled as needed, as shown in the tables below.
Exhibit 4B: Monthly Staff Hours and FTE Requirements 2013 Actual Workload Hours Required Workload Hours Actual Required FTE Actual Scheduled FTE FTE Variance 2013 Jan 17,327 20,679 125 124 -1 Feb 13,014 15,764 95 104 9 Mar 14,907 18,027 109 110 2 Apr 18,743 22,253 134 127 -7 May 21,065 24,923 150 112 -38 June 20,708 24,525 148 106 -42 July 23,441 27,339 165 127 -37 Aug 21,256 25,102 151 123 -28 Sep 21,119 24,835 150 128 -22 Oct 21,597 24,052 145 134 -11 Nov 23,857 26,377 159 128 -31 Dec 25,159 27,751 167 128 -39 Total 2013 242,194 281,627 141 121 -20
Exhibit 4C: Monthly Staff Hours and FTE Requirements 2014 (Jan – Oct only)
Actual Workload Hours Required Workload Hours Actual Required FTE Actual Scheduled FTE FTE Variance 2014 Jan 23,762 26,257 158 131 -27 Feb 24,042 26,422 159 130 -29 Mar 23,231 25,759 155 151 -4 Apr 23,360 25,844 156 136 -19 May 33,307 36,355 219 148 -71 June 34,637 37,711 227 142 -85 July 36,410 39,554 238 142 -96 Aug 31,526 34,444 207 133 -74 Sep 28,841 31,599 190 143 -48 Oct 24,916 27,549 166 144 -22 Nov Dec Total 2014 284,032 311,494 279 208 -48
Exhibit 5A: Annual Staffing Requirements Versus Actual Scheduled Hours
Workload Hours Actual Required Hours Actual Scheduled Hours Variance
2012 201,324 244,171 233,011 - 11,160
2013 242,194 281,627 240,749 - 40,877
2014 284,032 311,491 232,474 - 79,017
Exhibit 5B: Annual Staffing Requirements Versus Actual Scheduled Hours
Forecast FTE Actual Required FTE Actual Scheduled FTE Variance
2012 124 123 117 - 6
2013 139 141 121 -20
2014 192 279 208 -48
Exhibit 5C: Annual Staffing Requirements Versus Scheduled Hours (with Full Shrinkage)
Forecast FTE Actual Required FTE Actual Scheduled FTE Variance
2012 178 176 168 -8
2013 203 207 176 -20
2014 286 279 208 -71
As shown in the Tables above, there has been a serious staff shortage year over year as ICBC has not staffed up appropriately to respond to increasing workload. The service implications of this staffing shortage are evident from the actual speed-of-answer numbers shown below, along with the resulting call abandons and call abandon rates. Service Levels
The fewer the staff in place, the longer the wait time for callers. It is obvious from the numbers in the table below that staffing levels dropped to unacceptable levels throughout 2013 and 2014 as evidenced by the declining service levels.
Exhibit 6A: Actual Service Levels 2012 – 2014 Service Level Month 2012 2013 2014 Jan 77 72 43 Feb 82 90 37 Mar 77 77 62 Apr 56 70 58 May 70 51 21 Jun 83 43 14 Jul 60 41 14 Aug 62 49 16 Sep 64 61 26 Oct 72 56 46 Nov 78 31 Dec 57 27 Grand Total 70 54 32 Exhibit 6B: Service Level Graph, 2012 – 2014
While the stated goal of ICBC is to answer 80% of calls in 100 seconds, service levels declined and remained well below the 80% mark throughout the period in question from early 2013 to the end of the study period in late 2014.
Abandoned and Deflected Calls
As service levels decline and customers wait longer and longer in queue, many callers become frustrated with the wait time and abandon calls. The table below shows the increase in the number of abandoned calls and the corresponding abandoned call percentage rate during recent years.
0 20 40 60 80 100
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Service Levels for All Hours
2012 2013 2014
Exhibit 7A: Monthly Call Abandons 2012-2014 Call Abandons Month 2012 2013 2014 Jan 4566 9228 Feb 856 12735 Mar 2497 4930 Apr 4631 4147 6669 May 4336 11208 23344 June 2238 12358 29598 July 6638 13538 36171 Aug 6521 8421 29042 Sep 6287 6287 17745 Oct 4589 5655 8535 Nov 2916 14790 Dec 8212 16704 Total Abandons 46368 101027 177997
The numbers here represent a startling number of callers giving up and leaving the queue. These numbers are shown as a percentage abandon rate the in table below.
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Call Abandons
2012 2013 2014
Exhibit 8A: Call Abandon Rates 2012-2014
Call Abandon Rate
Month 2012 2013 2014 Jan 6% 12% Feb 2% 18% Mar 4% 7% Apr 8% 6% 9% May 7% 15% 27% June 4% 17% 35% July 10% 17% 39% Aug 9% 11% 34% Sep 10% 9% 22% Oct 6% 8% 11% Nov 4% 19% Dec 12% 21%
Average Abandon Rate 6% 12% 22%
With the rollout of Claims Hierarchy in April 2013, there is a dramatic rise in call abandon rates due to decreased staffing and low service levels starting in May 2013. Averaging the call abandon rate from May through December of 2013 shows a call abandon rate of 16% and that rate increases to 22% in 2014 as staff levels remain too low.
Exhibit 8B: Graph of Call Abandon Rates 2012 - 2014
These call abandon numbers and percentages are alarmingly high and are well above industry averages. They are extremely high for an organization like ICBC where there is no other alternative service-provider available for the caller. While it is more common to
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Call Abandon Rates
2012 2013 2014
see high abandons for a call center where there are many competitors and alternatives available, ICBC has a captive audience of customers with no place else to go to discuss a claim.
In addition to the high level of call abandons outlined above, there are also many other callers that attempted to reach the ICBC call center but never made it into the center at all. When not enough telephone trunks are in place to bring calls into the center, the caller simply receives a busy signal. There was an extremely high level of busy signals and deflected calls at ICBC, as evidenced by the following numbers.
Exhibit 9: Deflected Calls (April – October 2014)
Month Deflected Calls
April-2014 2,254 May-2014 13,343 Jun-2014 21,517 Jul-2014 25,970 Aug-2014 9,530 Sep-2014 4,479 Oct-2014 702 Nov-2014 4,049 Grand Total 81,844
This is a very high number of calls to be rejected at “the front door” of the call center, receiving a busy signal and being forced to retry the call at a later time. There was indeed a reduction in deflections in August of 2014 that coincides with additional telephone trunks being added in the form of another T1 facility, but as the most recent November data indicates, there are still many customers being denied access to the center, even to get in and wait in the queue.
Day in the Life Perspective
In addition to the annual and monthly perspectives outlined above, a more granular view of the numbers is provided that illustrates staffing and service scenarios for sample days throughout the study period. This review provides more of a “day in the life” illustration of the call center situation from both a customer and an employee perspective.
The service level numbers outlined in the tables above represent an average statistic for a month at a time. While there are periods of lower call volumes when service is at reasonable levels, there are also many periods where service really suffers. Obviously customers don’t call every day and assimilate all these experiences into an “average” one. At any given time, and especially on busy days like Mondays, customers may face an unreasonable service situation due to the chronically understaffed center.
Customer Service Impact
For example, on a Monday morning in late October (late in the study period when ICBC says the service problems have taken a turn for the better as the ClaimCenter transformation upheaval has settled), customers encountered the following staffing and service situation. (Note: These numbers were taken from ICBC’s Intra-Day Performance Reports. This sample is taken from October 27 at 10:30am, a typical Monday in the study period, with some days being better than this and other days worse than this scenario.)
Exhibit 10: Sample Hour Staffing and Service Scenario
Calls Offered Calls Abandoned Calls Handled Actual AHT Required Agents Scheduled Agents Service Level 191 22 169 1021 114 105 13%
In this 10:30 am scenario, staffing for the actual number of calls offered (NCO) would have indicated a workload of 108 hours or erlangs (191 x 1021/1800) with 114 staff required. With only 105 staff in place, long delays would have been experienced and 22 of the 191 calls abandoned. The remaining 169 calls with the 105 staff in place generated a service level where only 13% of callers for the hour were handled in under 100 seconds (rather than the 80% goal).
From a customer service point of view, understaffing results in longer delays. While a small amount of understaffing will naturally occur from time to time as workload fluctuates throughout the day, too many missing staff can have a significant impact on wait times. The relationship between staffing levels and wait times is not a linear one. There is an exponential worsening as the understaffing number grows.
With the workload scenario outlined here (191 calls, 1021 AHT), the following shows the impact on service as staffing numbers vary.
Exhibit 11: Sample Staffing and Service Scenario
NCO per Half-Hour
AHT Erlangs Staff Service Level in 100 sec
Average Delay (in sec)
Staff Occupancy 191 1021 108 109 13% 1429 99% 191 1021 108 110 30% 503 98% 191 1021 108 111 44% 277 97% 191 1021 108 112 56% 177 96% 191 1021 108 113 65% 121 95% 191 1021 108 114 72% 87 94% 191 1021 108 115 78% 64 93% 191 1021 108 116 83% 48 92% 191 1021 108 117 87% 37 92%
In this example, 113 – 117 staff would have resulted in a +/- 10% range around the desired service level goal of 80%. However, once the staff number drops below those levels, the service level drops by bigger and bigger percentages (56%, 44%, 30%, and 13%). Note the corresponding actual average delay for these staffing levels increasing in this exponential pattern – going from an 87 second delay with 114 staff as required to delays of 121, 177, 277, 503, and 1429 seconds as staff numbers decrease. (Note: Staffing calculations and the service implications are discussed and explained in detail in the Detailed Report that follows.)
While customers do have some tolerance for delays, especially if they have no other alternative for service, when delay times reach these high numbers, many callers will abandon. As noted in Exhibits 7 and 8 above, ICBC customers abandoned calls at an alarming rate. Almost all call centers shoot for abandon percentages in the low single digits and ICBC met these standards for the most part in 2012. However, by not reacting to the overall growth in workload with corresponding staff increases, delay times were unreasonable in 2013 and 2014 and proven unacceptable to customers by the very high call abandon rates.
ICBC has responded to these claims of poor service by stating that service level is not what customers care about and rather have focused on First Call Resolution (FCR) as the primary driver of customer satisfaction. While it is true that call resolution is key to customer satisfaction, having a contact handled in a reasonable timeframe is also an important factor in customer satisfaction and loyalty.
As shown below, despite claims that FCR is high, customer satisfaction has dropped during the study period. While there are many factors that contribute to customer satisfaction, the delay time that prevents timely access to claims processing has to be a contributor to the lower satisfaction ratings.
Exhibit 12: Customer Satisfaction Ratings
2010 2011 2012 2013
Claims Service Satisfaction 84 85 86 88
Customer Approval Index 59 63 62 59
Employee Perspective
Keeping customers happy is the key to running a successful business. The other key to success is keeping employees happy. Happy employees treat customers better and a stable, predictable work environment supports high levels of staff productivity and quality of work.
There are many factors that contribute to employee satisfaction or dissatisfaction in the workplace. These factors include physical work environment, schedule flexibility, supervisor relationships, growth opportunities, and others all contribute to job satisfaction.
One of the critical factors that contribute to job satisfaction in the call center is the day-to-day work environment and the level of workload to be accomplished within the day. Therefore, staff occupancy (often referred to as agent occupancy) is one of the most important metrics in the call center. It is a useful measure to senior management to ensure that the center’s personnel resource is being utilized effectively. It is also a measure from the employees’ perspective to show whether or not there is a reasonable level of work distributed to the staff.
Occupancy is simply a measure of how busy the staff are processing work (active on call or in after-call work) compared to sitting idle waiting on the next call to arrive. While it is desirable for this agent occupancy number to be high (since they are after all being paid to do the work), it is important that it is not too high or the staff will be overworked with not enough “breather” in between calls. The desirable range of staff occupancy for most call centers is 85% - 90% and most centers staff so that occupancy will not exceed 95% even during the busiest times of day.
When looking at the previous Exhibit 11, it is clear that the understaffing situation at ICBC has caused unreasonably high occupancy levels. In this example, the “required” staffing level of 114 staff would result in an occupancy level of 94% -- a high level by industry standards even if the desired staffing were in place. Given that there were actually many fewer staff in place than required for this and nearly every other half-hour period of the day, occupancy levels were most often at 100%. In other words, there were more hours of work to do than staff hours in place to handle the on-demand work. This means that when an agent was finished with a call, there was almost always another call waiting, so there was no recovery time – not even a few seconds – in between calls. When occupancy levels are consistently above 90%, it creates a difficult and taxing work environment. When occupancy levels reach 100% as they did on the sample day outlined in the table that follows, the workload burden is oppressive. The frontline staff are faced with call after call with little to no breather to recover and prepare for the next call. When this high occupancy is sustained over more than a few half-hours (as it is here), performance starts to suffer. High occupancy rates almost always lead to higher handle times, decreased schedule adherence, and a decline in call quality.
The table below shows the actual staffing and service for a sample day with the occupancy number added as the final column.
Exhibit 13: Service and Occupancy for Sample Day Time FORECAST NCO ACTUAL NCO FORECAST AHT ACTUAL AHT FORECAST STAFF ACTUAL REQ STAFF SCHED STAFF VARIANCE ACD SL% STAFF OCC % 7:00 24 18 842 926 14.2 12 12 0 100 .77 7:30 41 35 1008 683 26.9 16.3 17 0.7 94 .78 8:00 82 99 1032 841 52 50.8 34.8 -16 42 1.3 8:30 121 145 1012 895 73.5 77.2 55 -22.2 26 1.3 9:00 160 165 1125 982 106.1 95.7 91.4 -4.3 16 .98 9:30 169 185 1212 1157 120.4 125.3 102.5 -22.8 19 1.15 10:00 169 187 1272 1162 126.2 127.2 98.5 -28.7 23 1.21 10:30 179 191 1254 1021 131.5 114.2 105.3 -8.9 13 1.03 11:00 170 160 1326 1256 132.3 118.4 111 -7.4 28 1.00 11:30 168 180 1257 1228 124 129.5 90.1 -39.4 45 1.36 12:00 164 198 1238 1095 119.4 126.7 102.2 -24.5 20 1.18 12:30 161 192 1222 1106 115.8 124.2 98.2 -26.1 16 1.20 13:00 170 156 1215 1076 121.4 99.2 99.3 0.1 15 .94 13:30 165 182 1232 1111 119.5 118.6 99.8 -18.8 73 1.15 14:00 166 154 1228 1226 119.9 111.5 109.1 -2.4 99 .96 14:30 155 165 1265 1155 115.7 112.2 100.5 -11.7 83 1.05 15:00 159 174 1272 1258 119.2 128.5 90.2 -38.3 62 1.35 15:30 164 144 1333 1196 128.5 102 95.2 -6.8 42 1.00 16:00 158 146 1363 1188 126.7 102.7 86.7 -16 82 1.11 16:30 132 107 1400 1193 109.6 76.8 80.2 3.4 91 .88 17:00 107 81 1513 1386 96.9 68.3 69.2 0.8 100 .90 17:30 84 63 1445 1410 73.7 54.9 53.4 -1.5 100 .92 18:00 74 56 1478 1186 66.8 41.7 52.3 10.7 98 .70 18:30 62 53 1520 1030 58.1 31.6 39.5 8.9 100 .77
This high occupancy rate has been in place for a very long time at ICBC and is likely a factor contributing to decreasing scores in Employee Satisfaction surveys.
While ICBC does have a policy where employees are provided with a “stretch break” every hour in which a regular break is not scheduled, it is unclear from the data provided whether or not these are actually used. Since schedule adherence is a big factor on the frontline reps’ performance scorecard, taking unscheduled breaks would put them out of adherence and they may choose not to take these breaks in order to meet other goals. (Note: It is difficult to review use of these stretch breaks since there is not a specific code associated with logging out for this activity.) It is important to also point out that if indeed the breaks were taken, that would remove even more staff from the call-handling picture, making the occupancy even higher than noted in the table and more of a burden to those left on the phones.
Employee Engagement scores have declined from 54% in 2012 to 33% and 34% in 2013 and 2014. While the data is not specific as to what the causes of dissatisfaction are, the oppressive workload generated by the understaffing these last two years is likely a significant factor in the decline.
Management Perspective
ICBC’s response to the call center understaffing is that the company’s focus was not on service level but attention to first call resolution (FCR) as a more important measure of service and quality. While it is true that FCR is the metric most closely correlated with customer satisfaction, FCR and service level are not mutually exclusive. Ideally, ICBC should be concerned with both, as both of these –speed and quality – are important to the customer.
It is certainly desirable to focus on FCR. However, it is unclear from the data provided here whether ICBC’s actual FCR results are as stellar as noted. The results reported are good, but only represent about one percent of customers’ perspectives. And more importantly, even if the results are excellent and customers are happy with call resolution, it does not mean that it is acceptable to ignore the speed of answer.
Management’s other concern is operational cost. While running a successful call center operation means managing by the numbers and watching the personnel resource cost closely, labor decisions that result in too high a level of understaffing can have many direct and indirect costs to the operation. Longer delays translate into a higher cost of telecommunications from a trunking and usage perspective. High occupancy generally leads to longer call handle times, decreased schedule adherence, lessened call quality, higher absenteeism, and eventually burnout and turnover – all of which will eventually translate into higher costs.
The biggest cost to ICBC may be the long-term damage that can be done to ICBC’s service reputation with these long service delays. Customers that call only to reach a busy signal or then to enter the queue and wait there very long periods of time begin their interaction on a negative note that may be very hard to turn around, even with great service and high call resolution.
Conclusion and Recommendation
ICBC has failed to staff its contact center appropriately to respond to the changes in contact volume and handle times brought about by normal business growth and internal process and technology changes. Despite what appears to be a solid forecasting and planning process that results in a reasonable staffing and schedule requirement, ICBC has elected not to staff to required FTE levels.
The result of this understaffed situation is a service level way below the stated goal and a high level of abandoned and deflected calls. ICBC customers are not being well served when their calls are either deflected due to insufficient resources or they are forced to wait for long periods to have their calls answered.
The understaffing situation is hard on the employees as well. Too few staff in place translates into very high levels of occupancy hour after hour. This creates an unreasonable work environment and can impact many aspects of performance in a negative way. While in the short run, the decision not to add staff can be viewed as a cost-saving measure for the corporation, understaffing has many direct and indirect costs. Longer wait times create more telephone usage time which is a direct cost to the company, especially when many calls are abandoning and returning only to tie up phone lines multiple times. High occupancy rates can cause staff to have higher handle times in the short term and can contribute to decreased schedule adherence and absenteeism in the long term if not corrected. And finally, the impact of poor service on customer satisfaction can have long-term impacts and costs.
It is recommended that ICBC re-examine its staffing levels and add requisite staff to correspond to current and planned workloads. With the appropriate number of staff in place, ICBC will see a return to desired service levels, a reduction in abandoned calls and deflections, and a more reasonable workload for its staff.
The forecasting and planning process in place appears to be a sound one. With the upheaval and learning curve of the ClaimCenter project mostly over, it is recommended that ICBC create a solid forecast for 2015 and 2016 and move to immediately staff up to fill the current personnel gaps in order to accomplish stated service goals from a customer perspective and reasonable occupancy goals from an employee view.
Study Objective
In August 2014, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) filed a rate increase for its policyholders. ICBC’s call center employees represented by the Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union 378 (COPE 378) took this opportunity to file Matters of Interest documents related to the operation of the contact center serving ICBC policyholders.
The evidence on the record in this proceeding shows that call volumes have steadily increased over time, and two projects (Claims Hierarchy and ClaimCenter) undertaken in the recent past have caused handle times to increase substantially. These increases in both call volume and call handle times have added a substantial workload burden for the center. However, the management team has elected not to increase by enough staff to correspond to the increased workload. The result has been a severe understaffing situation that has resulted in very long wait times for callers, high caller abandonment rates, diminished service capacity, and long-standing unreasonably high workload for the staff.
This study was commissioned by COPE as an outside, independent review of call center workforce planning and management. The review is designed to assess the overall workload of the call center, including the patterns and trends associated with business factors including but not limited to the Claims Transformation Project. This analysis provides calculations of appropriate staffing levels for the center based on two factors -- ICBC’s established service goals for policyholders as well as reasonable staff occupancy levels. A comparison of this requirement compared to actual scheduled staff is provided that shows the implications from a service, occupancy, and cost perspective.
Workforce management is an art and a science where call history and business drivers are analyzed to predict future call volume, handle times, and patterns of work. A workload prediction by month, day, and half-hour is then used to determine staffing requirements to meet speed of answer service goals. This base “bodies in chairs” staffing requirement is then adjusted to account for staff shrinkage (necessary paid unproductive time) and other scheduling considerations to arrive at an overall schedule requirement and FTE count. These schedule numbers are then analyzed based on actual service delivery (for customers) and occupancy levels (for employees).
Assessment Approach
This workforce review was performed using ICBC-provided data from the Aspect workforce management software system and other ICBC generated reports. The
following steps are involved in the workforce management process and were reviewed as part of the analysis:
1. Forecast Workload
The first part of any staffing plan is to build a reliable forecast. This forecast takes into account past call history to analyze and predict future call volume and handle times. The most common approach in call center forecasting is time-series analysis. This method uses past history to determine the overall trend in the call data, as well as to break apart and identify seasonal, month-to-month patterns based on the business. ICBC uses the Aspect eWFM workforce management system, which is based on this time-series analysis approach. A base forecast from time-series analysis would then be adjusted based on known business factors. In ICBC’s case, the most obvious business factors would have been the rollout of Claims Hierarchy in April 2013 and ClaimCenter in November 2013. While call volume was not necessarily impacted in a major way by these changes, the average handle time of calls was significantly increased and the forecast handle time and overall workload reflected these anticipated changes.
A comparison of forecast call volume and handle time shows that workload forecasts were reasonable for the study period. While variation above and below the actual numbers are to be expected, for the most part forecasts were within a reasonable range. This variation was examined with a percent difference calculation as well as looking at a standard deviation calculation.
Forecast Staff Hours Actual Required Hours Percent Variance
2012 246287 244171 .008
2013 277327 281626 .015
2014 319005 311491 .023
This accuracy in forecasting is important to note, as it is not the underlying cause of the understaffing that has been apparent over the past two years. When some call centers experience understaffing, it is due to an insufficient and flawed forecasting process that has failed to predict the workload and need for staff. At ICBC, the forecasting process and results are sound and point to a requirement that was simply not filled at the scheduling phase of the workforce planning process.
2. Calculate staff and schedule requirements.
This data provided a forecast workload number (based on call volume and handle time predictions) along with a planned staff number. The analysis reviewed the forecasts and staffing projections compared to actual staffing that was in place. The Aspect reports show actual service level numbers for the study period, along with other service-related data such as abandoned call volumes and percentages.
As part of the staffing analysis, staffing calculations were independently done to verify staff requirements. This staffing analysis involved using industry-standard Erlang staffing calculations to arrive at actual staff requirements, as well as to show the “what-if” results if staff numbers were not in place as planned. These Erlang C calculations were used to arrive at service level, average speed of answer (ASA), and occupancy numbers to be expected with ICBC’s actual staff in place.
To better understand the staffing numbers and the relationship between workload, staff requirements, scheduled staff, and resulting service and occupancy, it would be useful to explain the staffing calculation process.
Step 1. Calculate workload.
First, a workload calculation is shown here based on call volume and handle time for a sample half-hour of a day in the study period.
10:30am – 11:00am 191 calls, AHT 1021 seconds 191 x 1021 = 195,011 seconds
195,011 seconds/1800 seconds per half hour=108 hours Staffing will be based on 108 hours or erlangs.
Step 2. Determine base staff requirement (bodies in chairs).
The first basic rule of contact center staffing is that there must always be more staff in place than the hours (erlangs) of work to do. That is because telephone calls arrive randomly within the hour and not in a formal, back-to-back fashion. This random arrival necessarily means that there will be periods where staff are idle waiting on calls to arrive, while at other times during the hour calls will be stacked up and waiting. This inefficiency caused by randomness is built into the Erlang C staff calculation approach that takes into account random arrivals and the queuing for the next available agent setup.
It should be noted here that this randomness of calling can be exaggerated by many factors and one of these factors is the handle time of calls. With the same amount of workload, a scenario with fewer calls and higher handle time (like ICBC) will take more staff than more calls with lower handle time. This is due to the fact that high handle times contribute to randomness while higher volume/lower handle times look more like sequential, back-to-back work.
As an example, consider a staffing situation with 1800 calls per hour and a handle time of 300 seconds, equating to 150 erlangs of work (1800 x 300 / 3600). This scenario to meet a 80% in 100 second service goal would require 154 staff. Now with the same workload, but offered as 600 calls with a handle time of 900 seconds (600 x 900/3600 = 150), the required staff would be 158 bodies in chairs.
Therefore, as ICBC’s handle time has increased, it has contributed to an increased workload just as part of the equation of call volume multiplied by handle time. However, it is important to note that this increased AHT has a double impact as the increased handle time makes random arrivals more apparent and further bumps up the requirement for staff.
There must always be more staff than hours of work to do, and how many more staff depends on the desired speed of answer. If a call center wishes to answer the calls very quickly, more staff will need to be in place, while long service delays require fewer staff. The base staff requirement (commonly referred to as “bodies in chairs”) was calculated based on ICBC’s stated speed-of-answer goal of 80% of calls answered in 100 seconds.
There is a wide range of service goals within the call center industry and no single “industry standard” for service level. However, the majority of centers have a speed of answer goal very close to 80% of calls answered in 20 or 30 seconds. ICBC’s service level goal of 80% of calls in 100 seconds allows for a much longer wait time than experienced in most call centers in North America. There is no right or wrong goal for service, but it should be noted that the service level target, even if it is met, would give ICBC callers a noticeably longer wait time than callers would perhaps get when calling other call centers.
Using this 80% of calls in 100 seconds, base staff requirements can be calculated. The following table shows the number of staff required to meet various service levels. This chart also shows the resulting average delay and staff occupancy with any given number of staff in place.
Exhibit 14: Sample Staffing and Service Scenario
NCO per Half-Hour
AHT Erlangs Staff Service Level in 100 Sec Average Delay Staff Occupancy 191 1021 108 109 13 1429 99% 191 1021 108 110 30 503 98% 191 1021 108 111 44 277 97% 191 1021 108 112 56 177 96% 191 1021 108 113 65 121 95% 191 1021 108 114 72 87 94% 191 1021 108 115 78 64 93% 191 1021 108 116 83 48 92% 191 1021 108 117 87 37 92%
Note the non-linear change in service level and ASA. To meet the 80% in 100 seconds service level, 116 bodies in chairs would be required. While one additional person improves service level by 4%, removing a person impacts it by 5% (and then 6%, 7%, 9%, 12% and so on.)
3. Determine actual schedule requirements.
The above tables show the progression and calculations from calls to base workload to actual workforce workload. This workload number includes a 10% non-productive time factor (due to the 90% schedule adherence factor) as well as the various factors and Erlang C calculations built into the workforce management system to account for the randomness of inbound calls.
In addition, once the scheduling stage occurs and the need to move from a “bodies in chairs” base staff requirement to an actual schedule requirement, it is necessary to account for the fact that staff are not always available to take calls. There are times when staff will be on break, at lunch, in meetings, or doing other off-phone work. In addition, it is necessary to build in additional time for paid time off and any other state that takes staff away from phone duty.
For the staffing numbers in this report, there are two steps of building in this non-productive time. First, to get to an actual staff work hours required, a non-non-productive time factor of 10% was used, along with the standard Erlang C staffing calculations.
When looking at the overall actual schedule requirement for scheduling purposes, a full shrinkage amount that takes into account all non available hours was used. At ICBC, staff shrinkage is tracked for the following categories with the numbers shown in the table representing the annual hours of time going into each category for the year. Exhibit 15. Annual Staff Shrinkage
Category 2012 2013 2014 One-on-One 832 713 518 Absence 22082 26658 19911 ACD 233255 244685 235865 Breaks 18227 19226 18772 File 4642 7049 11410 Meeting 2986 2482 1161 Other Work 11111 12789 13775 Paid Leave 6439 4878 3159
New Hire Training 3563 804 2983
Vacation 32180 33587 38124
ClaimCenter Train 0 4511 5248
Total 335317 357383 350926
Total FTE 171.49 182.77 216.19
Shrinkage % 30.44 31.53 32.79
Shrinkage is incorporated into the base staff requirement to inflate the staffing number to include time for breaks, meetings, training, paid time off, scheduled off phone work, etc. This schedule requirement was then adjusted for any scheduling rules and inflexibility to arrive at the needed FTE count.
In the example here, with a workload of 108 hours and a base staff requirement of 116 staff, actual staffing requirements would incorporate shrinkage in the following way: Actual Staff Requirement = 116 / (1 - 0.3279) = 172.6
4. Evaluate staffing scenarios.
An analysis was done comparing the required staff to actual scheduled staff. The actual staff numbers were taken from ICBC provided reports, including Aspect eWFM Intra-Day Performance (IDP) reports and the center’s SuperState Excel Reports, the reports used to generate payroll that provide full information about shrinkage and FTE numbers.
5. Evaluate impact on stakeholders.
The assessment of staffing and service is provided to review actual versus required staffing levels and the implications from three different perspectives. These three perspectives represent the three main stakeholders of the contact center - customers, frontline staff, and the management team.
As part of this Stakeholder Impact Assessment, there are several important considerations from these three perspectives:
Customer
Customers care about the service they receive from the call center. There are many ways to define service from their perspective, including the following:
Service Level. Service level is the most common way to define and measure the speed of answer in the center. There are other speed of answer measures, including average speed of answer (ASA) and longest delays in queue, but service level is the most common approach in the industry, as well as the primary way ICBC measures and reports on service. It is described as the percent of calls that are answered in a defined wait time threshold (x% in y seconds). In addition to service level, another useful way to examine service statistics is to look at the average delay or average speed of answer (ASA).
Abandoned Call Percentage. A primary indicator of whether staffing is sufficient or not is the abandoned call percentage. Most centers aim for no more than 2 – 5% of calls to abandon the queue. While some abandons are unavoidable, a high percent of callers leaving the queue is generally a red flag that staffing levels and wait times are unacceptable to callers.
Access Availability. A crucial part of service delivery is to provide adequate access in terms of local or long-distance telephone access. If not enough telephone trunks are in place, there will not be enough pathways into the center and callers will receive a busy signal and have to retry their calls.
First Call Resolution. There are many industry studies that show the primary indicator of success and satisfaction is whether or not customers get their questions answered or problems resolved on the first attempt. Call centers measure First Call Resolution (FCR) in a variety of ways, both from an internal tracking approach as well as a direct query to customers.
Customer Satisfaction. While there are many indicators of satisfaction as outlined above (service level, abandoned calls, and FCR), the best indication of customer satisfaction is a direct query to customers about selected elements of service.
Frontline Staff
Some of the issues that staff care about most are related to workload and their work schedules, with these two measures being primary indicators of satisfaction:
Staff Occupancy. This is simply a measure of how busy the staff are active on a call or in related after-call work (ACW) compared to idle waiting on a call to arrive. While staff should be busy processing calls, there needs to be a reasonable “breather” between calls for the staff to catch their breath and recover from the last call to be ready to handle the next customer.
Employee Satisfaction. The most obvious measure of employee satisfaction is direct scores and comments from the staff themselves.
Senior Management
The final stakeholder group is upper management who typically is keeping an eye on the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the operation. Some of the important measures of efficiency and utilization include the following:
Staff Occupancy. While also listed as an employee concern, it is also a good measure that provides senior management with a view of how well the personnel are being utilized.
Cost Impacts. Impacts on costs driven by understaffing are discussed.
These nine metrics are viewed as the top measures of success for a call center operation, providing a balanced view of customer, staff, and management concerns. In this report, the various degrees of understaffing will be examined with a look at how these primary stakeholder concerns are impacted by staffing decisions made by ICBC management. It is the goal of this report to help the Commission understand how recent staffing decisions have impacted the business, the employees, and the policyholders served by ICBC.
Results of Analysis
Step 1: Forecast Workload
Numbers are provided below that show the overall workload increases during the study period. Workload is calculated by multiplying the number of calls (NCO) by the average handle time (AHT). The first table shows month-by-month comparisons of the number of calls offered (NCO) and the second table shows AHT patterns. Note the steady increases in both from 2012 to 2013 to 2014.
(Note: Data supplied only complete through October 2014)
Exhibit 16A: Number of Calls Offered 2012-2014
Number of Calls Offered
Month 2012 2013 2014 Jan 66950 72767 78127 Feb 59378 55323 71008 Mar 61443 61237 72085 Apr 58784 68945 73024 May 65730 75205 85413 June 62488 72381 85649 July 69805 81074 93905 Aug 71332 74307 84210 Sep 65491 72651 81828 Oct 73825 74713 77066 Nov 70615 78086 Dec 70344 78291 Total Calls 796185 864980 802315
Exhibit 16B: Number of Calls Offered 2012-2014
The table and graph above show the gradual increase in the number of calls offered to the center. There is a gradual, steady increase in these calls, indicating an upward trend in business in general.
The numbers below show the corresponding numbers for the average handle time (AHT) of calls.
Exhibit 17A: Average Handle Time 2012-2014
Average Handle Time
Month 2012 2013 2014 Jan 868 857 1,095 Feb 875 847 1,219 Mar 896 876 1,160 Apr 976 979 1,152 May 979 1,008 1,404 Jun 916 1,030 1,456 Jul 956 1,041 1,396 Aug 932 1,030 1,348 Sep 923 1,047 1,269 Oct 866 1,041 1,164 Nov 853 1,100 Dec 894 1,157 Grand Total 910 1,008 1,274 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 85,000 90,000 95,000 100,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Number of Calls Offered
2012 2013 2014
Exhibit 17B: Average Handle Time 2012-2014
As seen above, call handle times have increased substantially over time. While there have been some decreases in the AHT in recent months, the numbers are still well above 2012 levels and remain above 2013 levels as well.
Call Workload
These two components of call volume and handle time are multiplied together as the base calculation of staff workload. The following table and graph show the calculation of staff workload (NCO x AHT) by month. Workload is expressed as hours of work.
Exhibit 18A: Call Workload Table 2012-2014
Call Workload Month 2012 2013 2014 Jan 16137 17327 23762 Feb 14430 13014 24042 Mar 15288 14907 23231 Apr 15930 18743 23360 May 17867 21065 33307 June 15900 20708 34637 July 18538 23441 36410 Aug 18475 21256 31526 Sep 16791 21119 28841 Oct 17763 21597 24916 Nov 16738 23857 Dec 17467 25159 Workload 201324 242194 284032 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Average Handle Time
2012 2013 2014
Exhibit 18B: Call Workload Graph
In addition to the steady increase in workload over time, there are several notable changes in the data outlined above. The Claims Hierarchy project rolled out in April 2013 and there is a corresponding significant jump in workload beginning in May 2013. The next sizable jump in workload occurs November 2013 with the rollout of ClaimCenter. While an increase in calls does occur steadily over time, the major change in workload is due to the increased time required to handle calls.
Step 2: Calculate Staffing Requirements
This increase in workload would indicate a corresponding increase in staffing levels. The following tables show the actual numbers with the progression from actual workload to required staff workload and the resulting FTE requirements.
As explained in the prior section related to staffing requirements, there is a progression here from actual workload hours (seen in Exhibit 18) which is a calculation of NCO multiplied by AHT to a required workload hours that incorporates several factors related to staffing.
These Required Workload numbers below are comprised of a base of Actual Workload with an adjustment for simple, unproductive time. This unproductive time for most of these months accounts for the 90% schedule adherence expectation and the fact that there is 10% unproductive time. (Note: In an analysis of this data, it appears this unproductive time is a bit higher in 2012 than in 2013 and 2014). The adjustment also incorporates the Erlang C random call adjustment inherent in the WFM software to arrive at the number of hours for staffing to meet service goals.
12,000 17,000 22,000 27,000 32,000 37,000 42,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Call Workload
2012 2013 2014
Exhibit 19A: Monthly Staff Hours and FTE Requirements 2012 Actual Workload Hours Required Workload Hours Actual Required FTE Actual Scheduled FTE FTE Variance 2012 Jan 16,137 19,718 119 120 2 Feb 14,430 17,768 107 113 6 Mar 15,288 18,670 112 116 4 Apr 15,930 19,245 116 110 -6 May 17,867 21,711 131 122 -9 June 15,900 19,348 117 118 2 July 18,538 22,337 135 116 -19 Aug 18,475 22,280 134 117 -17 Sep 16,791 20,300 122 113 -9 Oct 17,763 21,436 129 125 -4 Nov 16,738 20,295 122 121 -1 Dec 17,467 21,063 127 111 -16 Total 2012 201,324 244,171 123 117 -6
Exhibit 19B: Monthly Staff Hours and FTE Requirements 2013
Actual Workload Hours Required Workload Hours Actual Required FTE Actual Scheduled FTE FTE Variance 2013 Jan 17,327 20,679 125 124 -1 Feb 13,014 15,764 95 104 9 Mar 14,907 18,027 109 110 2 Apr 18,743 22,253 134 127 -7 May 21,065 24,923 150 112 -38 June 20,708 24,525 148 106 -42 July 23,441 27,339 165 127 -37 Aug 21,256 25,102 151 123 -28 Sep 21,119 24,835 150 128 -22 Oct 21,597 24,052 145 134 -11 Nov 23,857 26,377 159 128 -31 Dec 25,159 27,751 167 128 -39 Total 2013 242,194 281,627 141 121 -20
Exhibit 19C: Monthly Staff Hours and FTE Requirements 2014 Actual Workload Hours Required Workload Hours Actual Required FTE Actual Scheduled FTE FTE Variance 2014 Jan 23,762 26,257 158 131 -27 Feb 24,042 26,422 159 130 -29 Mar 23,231 25,759 155 151 -4 Apr 23,360 25,844 156 136 -19 May 33,307 36,355 219 148 -71 June 34,637 37,711 227 142 -85 July 36,410 39,554 238 142 -96 Aug 31,526 34,444 207 133 -74 Sep 28,841 31,599 190 143 -48 Oct 24,916 27,549 166 144 -22 Nov Dec Total 2014 284,032 311,494 279 208 -48 Step 3: Evaluate Staffing Scenarios
A review of the tables above show the required versus scheduled hours and the required versus scheduled FTE. These numbers are summarized by year in the tables below.
Exhibit 20A: Annual Staffing Requirements Versus Actual Scheduled Hours
Workload Hours Actual Required Hours Actual Scheduled Hours Variance
2012 201,324 244,171 233,011 - 11,160
2013 242,194 281,627 240,749 - 40,877
2014 284,032 311,491 232,474 - 79,017
Exhibit 20B: Annual Staffing Requirements Versus Actual Scheduled Hours
Forecast FTE Actual Required FTE Actual Scheduled FTE Variance
2012 124 123 117 - 6
2013 139 141 121 -20
2014 192 279 208 -48
The final table here shows the FTE counts will full shrinkage incorporated into the numbers. This final shrinkage number accounts for all the time needed per person for not just phone work, but all non-productive activities such as breaks, meetings, trainings,
off-Exhibit 20C: Annual Staffing Requirements Versus Scheduled Hours (with Full Shrinkage)
Forecast FTE Actual Required FTE Actual Scheduled FTE Variance
2012 178 176 168 -8
2013 203 207 176 -20
2014 286 279 208 -71
There has been a serious staff shortage year over year, as ICBC has not staffed up appropriately to respond to increasing workload. The service implications of this staffing shortage are evident from the actual speed-of-answer numbers shown below, along with the resulting call abandons and call abandon rates.
Step 4: Evaluate Stakeholder Impact
There are three primary call center stakeholder groups: customers, employees, and senior management. The following section provides a review of the staffing scenario from these three perspectives:
Customer Impact Employee Impact Management Impact
Service Level Agent Occupancy Staff Occupancy Abandon Calls Employee Satisfaction Operating Costs Access Availability
First Call Resolution Customer Satisfaction
Customer - Service Levels
The fewer the staff in place, the longer the wait time for callers. It is obvious from the numbers below that staffing levels dropped to unacceptable levels throughout 2013 and 2014 as evidenced by the declining service levels. While the stated goal of ICBC is to answer 80% of calls in 100 seconds, service levels declined and remained well below the 80% mark throughout the period in question from early 2013 to the end of the study period in late 2014.
Exhibit 21A: Actual Service Levels 2012 – 2014 Service Level Month 2012 2013 2014 Jan 77 72 43 Feb 82 90 37 Mar 77 77 62 Apr 56 70 58 May 70 51 21 Jun 83 43 14 Jul 60 41 14 Aug 62 49 16 Sep 64 61 26 Oct 72 56 46 Nov 78 31 Dec 57 27 Grand Total 70 54 32
Exhibit 21B: Graph of Service Level 2012 – 2014
Another way to look at the service level numbers is to look at what percent of the intervals of the day where service level is actually being achieved. Reviews of the sample data show that service level goals are not being met for most periods of the day.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Service Levels for All Hours
2012 2013 2014
Exhibit 22: Percent of Intervals Meeting 80/100 Service Level Goal
Intervals Meeting SL Goal
2012 2013 2014 Jan 55% 63% 35% Feb 62% 73% 37% Mar 55% 64% 48% Apr 35% 54% 39% May 47% 36% 13% Jun 64% 25% 7% Jul 42% 25% 5% Aug 46% 38% 9% Sep 49% 52% 20% Oct 56% 48% 38% Nov 63% 24% Dec 44% 23% Grand Total 51% 44% 25%
According to the Society of Workforce Planning Professionals (SWPP), most call centers perform much better than ICBC in this category. In a 2009 survey, 33% of call centers say they meet speed of answer goals in 80-90% of the half-hours of the day. Another 31% say they meet the goal in 70-80% of the half-hours. Eleven percent say they meet the speed of answer goal in over 90% of the half-hours of the day. In other words, 75% of call centers meet service goals in more than 70% of the intervals for the day. ICBC met the service level goal in only half the intervals in 2012, and the successive years of 2013 and 2014 got progressively worse.
Abandoned Calls
As service levels decline and customers wait longer and longer in queue, many callers become frustrated with the wait time and abandon calls. The table below shows the increase in the number of abandoned calls and the corresponding abandoned call percentage rate during recent years.
Exhibit 22A: Monthly Call Abandons 2012-2014 Call Abandons Month 2012 2013 2014 Jan 4566 9228 Feb 856 12735 Mar 2497 4930 Apr 4631 4147 6669 May 4336 11208 23344 June 2238 12358 29598 July 6638 13538 36171 Aug 6521 8421 29042 Sep 6287 6287 17745 Oct 4589 5655 8535 Nov 2916 14790 Dec 8212 16704 Total Abandons 46368 101027 177997
Note the marked increase in call abandons starting in May 2013 when the Claims Hierarchy project began with higher handle times and workload without corresponding increase in staff. Another jump happened in November 2013 with the rollout of ClaimCenter with again not enough staff to cover the increased workload. Service levels were low with substantially increased wait times, causing callers to find the wait time unacceptable and abandon their calls.
Exhibit 22B: Graph of Monthly Call Abandons 2012-2014
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Call Abandons
2012 2013 2014
The numbers here represent a startling number of callers giving up and leaving the queue, especially given that ICBC customers have no other alternative place to have their claims questions answered.
These abandon numbers are shown as a percentage abandon rates the in tables and graphs below.
Exhibit 23A: Call Abandon Rates 2012-2014
Call Abandon Rate
Month 2012 2013 2014 Jan 6% 12% Feb 2% 18% Mar 4% 7% Apr 8% 6% 9% May 7% 15% 27% June 4% 17% 35% July 10% 17% 39% Aug 9% 11% 34% Sep 10% 9% 22% Oct 6% 8% 11% Nov 4% 19% Dec 12% 21%
Average Abandon Rate 6% 12% 22%
Exhibit 23B: Call Abandon Rates 2012-2014
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Call Abandon Rates
2012 2013 2014
These call abandon numbers and percentages are alarmingly high and are well above industry averages. Most centers shoot for abandon rates of 2-5% or certainly in single digits. Abandon rates this high certainly send a message that customers do not tolerate the excessive wait times delivered in 2013 and 2014.
Access Availability
In addition to the high level of call abandons outlined above, there are also many other callers that attempted to reach the call center but never made it into the center at all.
Exhibit 24 Deflected Calls (April – October 2014)
Month Deflected Calls
April-2014 2,254 May-2014 13,343 Jun-2014 21,517 Jul-2014 25,970 Aug-2014 9,530 Sep-2014 4,479 Oct-2014 702 Nov-2014 4,049 Grand Total 81,844
When not enough telephone trunks are in place to bring calls into the center, the caller simply receives a busy signal. There was an extremely high level of busy signals and deflected calls at ICBC, as evidenced by the following numbers.
This is a very high number of calls to be rejected at “the front door” of the call center, receiving a busy signal and being forced to retry the call at a later time. There was indeed a reduction in deflections in August of 2014 that coincides with additional telephone trunks being added in the form of another T1 facility, but as the most recent November data indicates, there are still many customers being denied access to the center, even to get in and wait in the queue.
First Call Resolution
service score related to FCR remained high, which indicates improvements to process have been well received.”
It is important to understand that FCR and service level are both important elements of service. Callers do indeed care about FCR, but just because this is generally the most important driver of customer satisfaction does not mean callers do not care about the length of delay while waiting on a Claims rep. Ideally, one does not have to be sacrificed to achieve the other.
There are many ways to measure FCR, including customer surveys, staff designation, quality call reviews, and/or tracking of calls to monitor for subsequent calls and resolution steps. ICBC uses a customer survey methodology by SQM to query callers after the fact about their satisfaction with the resolution of calls.
While it is good that ICBC measures FCR and views this as a primary driver of customer satisfaction, it should be noted that there is actually only a very small percent of customers who are providing feedback related to call resolution. First, it is unclear how a decision is made about which customers to survey in the first place. But the primary problem is the percent of customers actually represented by this FCR survey data. Only about one percent of callers are providing feedback about their view of FCR.
The following table shows the results of FCR sampling and the number of people participating in the survey process.
Exhibit 25: FCR Survey Sampling
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Average
Number Calls Offered 78,086 78,291 78,127 71,008 72,085 73,024 75,103 Number of Dials 14,786 15,095 17,114 24,874 17,381 17,466 17,786 Customers Reached 2,589 2,683 2,838 4,315 3,857 3,600 3,313 Customers Responding 652 709 758 1,125 967 803 835 Percent of NCO <1% <1% <1% 1.5% 1.3% 1.1% 1.1%
The percent of customers that indicated that their call was completed in one contact averages 80%, as shown in the table below. However, survey results also showed that it took on average 1.35 contacts for resolution.
