呼叫中心KPI考核标准
呼叫中心 考核标准
呼叫中心考核标准呼叫中心是企业与客户进行沟通的重要窗口，直接关系着企业形象和客户满意度。
为了保持呼叫中心的高效运营，需要制定一系列的考核标准，以评估员工的表现和呼叫中心的整体业绩。
以下是一些可能的考核标准：1. 电话服务水平：- 响应速度：员工接听电话的平均时间，通常应在规定的时间内完成。
- 答复准确性：员工能否快速、准确地回答客户的问题，提供有效的解决方案。
- 语音礼仪：员工在通话过程中是否使用专业、礼貌的用语，遵守公司的通话标准。
2. 客户满意度：- 评价调查：通过电话后跟客户进行满意度调查，了解客户对服务质量的评价。
- 投诉率：记录客户对呼叫中心服务不满的投诉情况，以此反映客户满意度。
3. 问题处理能力：- 解决率：员工在一次通话中能否解决客户的问题，以减少电话转接率和不必要的等待时间。
- 处理时间：评估员工处理问题的速度和效率，确保能够高效地处理大量的来电。
4. 个人表现：- 准时度：员工能否按时上班，避免迟到和早退。
- 出勤率：员工的出勤率是否达到公司规定的要求。
- 销售能力：如果员工需要进行销售，他们的销售技巧和成果也应作为一项考核标准。
5. 团队合作：- 合作精神：员工是否愿意与同事合作，共同完成工作任务。
- 互助支持：员工是否愿意协助其他同事解决问题，以提高整体团队的工作效率。
6. 呼叫中心业绩：- 平均处理时间：呼叫中心的平均处理时间应适当，不仅要高效地解决客户问题，还要避免过快导致服务质量下降。
- 电话接通率：检验呼叫中心的电话接通效率，需要保持在一定的比例范围内。
- 客户流失率：维持客户的持续性和忠诚度，降低客户流失率是呼叫中心工作的重要目标。
总之，呼叫中心的考核标准应涵盖员工服务水平、客户满意度、问题处理能力、个人表现、团队合作以及整体业绩等方面。
这些标准有助于评估员工的表现和呼叫中心的整体业绩，进而为企业提供改进服务和管理方案的参考依据。
呼叫中心人员绩效考核指标有哪些
呼叫中心人员绩效考核指标有哪些在当今竞争激烈的商业环境中，呼叫中心作为企业与客户沟通的重要渠道，其服务质量和效率直接影响着客户满意度和企业形象。
为了确保呼叫中心的高效运作和优质服务，对呼叫中心人员进行科学合理的绩效考核至关重要。
那么，呼叫中心人员的绩效考核指标有哪些呢？一、服务质量指标1、客户满意度客户满意度是衡量呼叫中心服务质量的核心指标。
通过客户在通话结束后的满意度调查，了解客户对服务的评价，包括服务态度、解决问题的能力、响应速度等方面。
一般以百分比的形式呈现，目标值通常设定在 85%以上。
2、服务准确性考核呼叫中心人员提供信息的准确性，确保客户得到正确无误的解答和指引。
例如，订单处理的准确率、问题回答的准确率等。
这一指标可以通过定期的质量监控和抽查来评估。
3、服务规范性评估呼叫中心人员是否遵循公司制定的服务流程和规范，包括问候语、结束语、礼貌用语的使用等。
规范的服务能够提升客户的体验，增强企业的专业形象。
二、工作效率指标1、平均通话时长包括平均呼入通话时长和平均呼出通话时长。
较短的通话时长意味着更高的效率，但也要确保在短时间内解决客户问题，达到服务质量和效率的平衡。
一般来说，呼入通话时长在 3 至 5 分钟较为合理。
2、处理工单数量统计呼叫中心人员在一定时间内处理的工单数量，反映其工作负荷和处理能力。
但要注意工单的复杂程度和质量，避免为追求数量而忽视质量。
3、首次解决率指客户的问题在第一次通话中得到解决的比例。
较高的首次解决率可以减少客户的重复来电，提高客户满意度，同时降低运营成本。
三、工作能力指标1、沟通能力包括语言表达清晰、逻辑思维严密、倾听技巧良好等方面。
良好的沟通能力能够更好地理解客户需求，有效地传达信息，解决问题。
2、问题解决能力考察呼叫中心人员在面对各种复杂问题时，能否迅速分析问题，找到解决方案。
可以通过实际案例的处理情况来评估。
3、应变能力在处理突发情况或客户情绪激动时，能够保持冷静，灵活应对，化解矛盾，确保服务的顺利进行。
呼叫中心关键绩效考核指标
序号
KPI指标
考核周期
指标定义/公式
资料来源
1
呼叫中心业务
计划完成率
月/季/年度
呼叫中心
2
服务费用
预算控制率
月/季/年度
财务部
3
客户调研
计划完成率
月/季/年度
呼叫中心
4
呼叫中心服务流程
改进目标完成率
月/季/年度
呼叫中心
5
客户满意度
月/季/年度
接受调研的客户对客服部工作满意度评分的算术平均值
呼叫中心
6
转接率
月/季/年度
呼叫中心
7
呼叫数
月/季/年度
指所有打入/打出中心的电话，包括受到阻塞的、中途放弃的和已经答复的电叫中心
呼叫中心考核标准
呼叫中心考核标准呼叫中心是现代企业重要的客户服务渠道之一，为提高呼叫中心的工作效率与质量，需要建立科学、严谨的考核标准。
下面是一份呼叫中心考核标准的参考。
一、业务能力考核1. 业务知识掌握情况：评估呼叫中心坐席对产品、服务等方面的了解程度，包括公司相关业务流程、产品特点、技术知识等。
2. 问题解决能力：考察坐席处理客户问题的能力，包括准确理解客户问题、快速找到解决方案、有效解决问题等能力。
3. 服务态度：评估坐席对客户的态度，包括亲切礼貌、积极主动、耐心细致等方面。
4. 语言表达能力：考察坐席的语言表达能力，包括发音准确、语速适中、口齿清晰等方面。
二、工作效率考核1. 每日通话量：评估坐席每天的通话量，反映了其工作效率和工作能力。
2. 通话时长：考察坐席处理客户问题的速度，通话时长短的坐席通常更具高效率。
3. 办结率：评估坐席办结问题的能力，包括是否能在规定时间内解决问题，是否需要转接他人处理等。
三、客户满意度考核1. 监听录音：通过对坐席与客户之间的通话进行录音，评估客户满意度，包括服务态度、问题解决能力等方面。
2. 客户反馈：记录客户对呼叫中心的满意度反馈，包括电话调查、在线评价等方式。
3. 客户投诉量：评估客户对坐席工作的不满程度，反映了坐席工作的质量和客户满意度。
四、自我提升考核1. 学习能力：考察坐席的学习能力，包括参与公司培训、学习新知识、积累经验等方面。
2. 反思总结：评估坐席是否有定期反思总结工作中的不足之处，并提出改进措施。
五、团队合作考核1. 协作能力：考察坐席与其他团队成员的合作能力，包括信息共享、团队协作等方面。
2. 团队目标达成情况：评估团队的业绩情况，包括呼叫量、问题解决率等指标。
以上是一份呼叫中心考核标准的参考，可根据具体企业的实际情况进行调整和完善。
考核标准的建立有助于提高呼叫中心的工作质量和效率，提升客户满意度，从而为企业带来更好的经济效益和声誉。
呼叫中心绩效考核表细则
咨询部
上门部
工作态度23
很主动工作积极替上级分担工作23分/工作积极性比较高、热情、有亲和力，有责任心得20分，/工作比较主动，责任心比较高工作热情15分/工作态度一般、有一定责任心得10分，工作态度冷漠，死板得2分，不服从领导安排或发生争执该项目不得分。
工作质量30
1．每一个电话录音都会分语言规范、服务态度、解决情况三类，每类分ABCD四档。一个电话中出现D档，则在该月考核的工作质量项中扣1分。出现C档，扣0.5分。两个C档等价于一个D档；2个B档等价于一个C档。如果在服务态度中出现D档，工作质量项扣3分。如一个月内服务态度类中出现3次或以上D档，则当月工作质量分清0，该咨询员工进入观察期。
按时口头反馈得5分，未按时口头反馈一次扣2分。
分区税局主要业务每月与有关部门进行2次沟通；各税务分局每月巡查一次。（5分）
未按时反馈沟通信息一次扣1分
投诉处理和反馈（5分）
延迟反馈扣2分，未反馈该项目不得分，未反馈且造成重大不良影响或业务部门投诉KPI项目不得分。
技术
与税局网站值班电话，银行的税单协调，进行沟通及时，重大问题做好问题纪录单。（10分）
每月提供宣传单给现场。（月底30日）（8分）
延期扣5分。
公告栏（8分）。
未按时汇总提交扣4分，未提交KPI项目不得分。
每月修正现有用户的联系方法（8分）。
月度提交汇总信息，如修正情况良好，得8分，抽查一次信息有误，扣2分，直至扣完
销售
按照工作计划，完成月度、季度、年度销售指标。（15分）
月度误差在5％，得12分，超过5％，不得分，季度任务完成，补足月度考核差额。
要及时处理咨询人员提交给技术的电话记录单，要做到当日的电话记录单当日解决。如果遇到服务器等问题不能当天解决的，必须告知咨询人员，以便能与报税用户及时的沟通。(20分)
呼叫中心最重要的5个管理指标(KPI)
How Does YOUR Call Center Stack Up?Call Center KPI’sThe Five Most Important Performance Indicatorsfor Customer Service Call Centers(Part 2 of a 6-part Series on Call Center Benchmarking)By Jeff Rumburg and Eric ZbikowskiManaging Partners at:IntroductionToday’s call center technologies and reporting packages make it easy to capture copious amounts of performance data. Most call center managers can tell you everything from last month’s average speed of answer to yesterday’s average handle time. But what does it all mean? If my abandonment rate goes up, but my cost per call goes down, is that good or bad? Is my call center performing better this month than it was last month? Despite all the data that call center managers have at their fingertips, most cannot answer a very basic question: How is my call center performing? Perhaps worse, many call center managers are unaware of the critical role – beyond mere measurement – that Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) can and should play in the call center. This includes the ability to track and trend performance, identify, diagnose, and correct performance problems, and to establish performance goals and assign accountability for achieving the goals.An increasing number of progressive call centers recognize that when it comes to performance metrics, less really is more! They have discovered the 80/20 rule as it applies to call center performance measurement. These world-class call centers have learned that the effective application of just five KPI’s is all that is required for measuring, managing, and continuously improving their call center performance.In this article, MetricNet (), a leading source of online benchmarks and a pioneer in call center benchmarking, identifies and defines the five most important performance metrics for customer support call centers. They provide benchmark ranges for these metrics, and offer a creative approach for combining these metrics into a single, all-inclusive measure of call center performance.The Mighty Power of MetricsMany of us have heard the sage advice “You can’t manage what you don’t measure.” This is particularly true in the call center, where effective performance measurement is not just a necessity, but a prerequisite for effective decision-making. Despite the widespread belief in this statement, few call centers use KPI’s to their full potential. In fact MetricNet’s research, gathered from literally thousands of call center benchmarks, suggests that the vast majority of call centers use metrics to track and trend their performance – but nothing more! Unfortunately, in this mode, a call center misses the real value of performance measurement by failing to exploit the diagnostic capabilities of KPI’s.The true potential of KPI’s can only be unlocked when they are used holistically, not just to measure performance, but also to:Track and trend performance over timeBenchmark performance vs. industry peersIdentify strengths and weaknesses in the call centerDiagnose and understand the underlying drivers of performance gapsPrescribe actions to improve performanceEstablish performance goals for both individuals and the call center overallIn short, performance measurement and management is a critical discipline that must be mastered for any call center that aspires to world-class performance.A simple example will serve to illustrate how this discipline is applied. MetricNet recently worked with a 500+ seat bank call center that was struggling with low levels of customer satisfaction. A quick benchmark of the KPI’s showed that the bank’s First Contact Resolution (FCR) – the number of contacts resolved on initial contact with the customer – was low, at only 71%. Given the strong correlation between FCR and Customer Satisfaction (Figure 1 below), the bank initiated a number of initiatives designed to increase the FCR. These included more agent training hours, and the implementation of performance goals for FCR. As a result, over a period of eight months the bank realized a substantial increase in FCR, and hence customer satisfaction (Figure 2 below).The Five Most Important Call Center MetricsThe average customer service call center tracks more than 25 metrics. A list of the most common metrics is shown below (Figure 3). This is a classic example of quantity over quality, where call centers falsely assume that they are doing something productive and good by tracking all of these metrics. The vast majority of these metrics, however, are only marginally relevant – at best! The five that really matter are as follows: Cost per callCustomer SatisfactionFirst Contact Resolution RateAgent UtilizationAggregate Call Center PerformanceThese five metrics represent the 80/20 rule when it comes to call center performance: 80% of the value you receive from performance measurement and management in your call center can be derived from these five simple metrics!How do we know these are the most important metrics? Is it a hunch? Suspicion? An academic exercise? No, it’s none of the above. We know that these are the five metrics that matter most because the empirical evidence from more than a thousand call center benchmarks supports this conclusion. But let us explain why these metrics are socritically important.One goal of every business is to achieve the highest possible quality at the lowest possible cost. It stands to reason, therefore, that cost and quality should be measured on an ongoing basis. In fact, many would argue that cost and quality are the only two things that really matter. In a call center, the most effective cost metric is cost per contact, and the best indicator of quality is customer satisfaction. With this premise in mind, it’s relatively easy to come up with the next two metrics on our list: First Contact Resolution (FCR), and Agent Utilization.Earlier in this article, we talked about the importance of using metrics as a diagnostic tool to improve performance. So we have to ask ourselves, if customer satisfaction is one of the “foundation metrics” in the call center, how can we affect it? How can we improve it? Put another way, if customer satisfaction is suffering, what is the diagnosis?Well, it turns out that customer satisfaction is affected by a whole range of other performance variables, including Average Speed of Answer (ASA), Call Quality, and Handle Time, to name just a few. But the single biggest driver of customer satisfaction – by far – is FCR! The strong correlation between these two metrics was illustrated earlier in Figure 1. Nine times out of ten when customer satisfaction needs to improve, this can be achieved by increasing the FCR. This is why world-class call centers pay so much attention to this metric. They engage in a variety of tactics to continuously improve FCR, including agent training, investments in knowledge bases, and agent incentives tied toimprovements in FCR.But what about Cost per Call, the other foundation metric in the call center? It is common knowledge that labor, i.e. personnel, is the single biggest expense in the call center. In fact, for the average call center, 67% of all costs are labor related: salaries, benefits, incentive pay, and contractors. By definition, then, labor costs are the greatest lever we have to reduce the cost per call.The best measure of labor efficiency is agent utilization. Because labor costs represent the overwhelming majority of call center expenses, if agent utilization is high, the cost per call will inevitably be low. Conversely, when agent utilization is low, labor costs, and hence cost per call, will be high. This is illustrated in Figure 4 below.Just as world-class call centers are obsessive about maintaining a high FCR, they are equally committed to keeping their agent utilization rates high. This, in turn, has the effect of minimizing cost per call as illustrated above. That said, high utilization rates taken to the extreme, can actually increase your costs by driving agent turnover rates higher. Whenever utilization numbers approach 80% - 90%, that call center will see relatively high agent turnover rates because they are pushing the agents too hard. Extremely high utilization leads to burnout, and that, in turn, leads to turnover. Turnover is one of the most costly things that a call center can experience. In order to proactively manage agent turnover, best-in-class contact centers focus on “career pathing,” training, and time off phones to work on projects. The more time spent off the phones, the more training agents receive, and the more career coaching they have, thelower the turnover will be. This has to be leavened, of course, with the need to keep agents productive on the phones.The formula for determining agent utilization is somewhat complicated. It factors in the length of the work day, break times, vacation and sick time, training time and a number of other factors. But there is an easy way to approximate agent utilization without going to all this trouble:Let’s say, for example that the agents in a particular call center handle an average of1,250 calls per month at an average handle time of 5 minutes. Additionally, these agents work an average of 21 days per month, and their work day is 7.5 hours after subtracting lunch and break times. The simplified utilization formula above would work out to the following:Once again, this is not a perfect measure of agent utilization, but it is quick and easy, and gets you within 5% of the true agent utilization figure.We have now discussed four of the five metrics that are most important for managing a call center. What about the fifth metric? What is aggregate call center performance, and how do we measure it? Can a single measure really tell us the overall performance of our call center? The answer is yes, but as the name suggests, it involves aggregating a number of measures to come up with a combined score for call center performance. MetricNet’s research shows that establishing a single, overall score for your call center is critical. We call this measure the Balanced Score because it truly does communicate a balanced picture of call center performance. This is a mechanism that utilizes the key measures tracked in a call center, including such things as cost per call, ASA and call abandonment rate, and rolls them into a single, aggregate measure of call center performance.The value of this metric, when tracked over time, is that it enables call centers to determine whether overall performance is improving or declining. Oftentimes, when a call center attempts to communicate its performance to other stakeholders in the business, particularly to lay people who do not understand call center operations, they quickly become overwhelmed by the minutia of such measures as speed-of-answer and abandonment rate, and they are confused as to how to interpret the results. They are likely to focus in on one, easily-understood measure like abandonment rate or first-call resolution rate, and draw conclusions about overall call center performance from these two (relatively unimportant) measures. This is a classic case of “missing the forest for the trees”. It is therefore absolutely critical to communicate the overall performance of the call center, and the Balanced Score does that for you. It allows the aggregation of a whole series of measures, the normalization of those measures, and the creation a singleall-encompassing indicator of call center performance on a monthly basis. In this way, the call center can track its overall performance, and, in any given month, may see costs go up or customer satisfaction go down or speed of answer increase, but these individual measures take on a secondary level of importance because the Balanced Score provides a more complete and accurate portrait of call center performance.Figure 5 below illustrates how the Balanced Score is determined.Figure 6 below illustrates the Balanced Score for one call center over a twelve month period. Notice how you can see at a glance which months had improving performance (the balanced score goes up), and which months had declining performance (the balanced score goes down). The good news for this call center is that the overall trend is in a positive direction.Metrics that Don’t Matter (as much)Some of the most commonly tracked metrics in the call center, including ASA and Call Abandonment Rate, did not make the cut of the top five. Why is this? Have we missed something? Why are ASA and Call Abandonment Rate, which are so widely followed in this industry, not included in the top five? The answer is simple…they just don’t matter! That’s right; these metrics which are the foundation of so many service level agreements have almost no impact on customer satisfaction. Worse yet, as these metrics are pushed lower (i.e., lower ASA and lower Call Abandonment Rates) the cost per call increases geometrically! These facts fly in the face of almost all call center wisdom, which holds that ASA and Call Abandonment Rate should be driven as low as possible.If nothing else, in this paper we hope to shatter the myth that ASA and Call Abandonment Rate are important metrics. The reality is that these measures can yield unintended results if pushed too low. They will increase your costs without any corresponding increase in customer satisfaction. In the next section of this article, we will provide some guidelines for appropriate ASA and Call Abandonment Rate targets. And, as you probably suspect, they are higher than you might think.As we stated earlier in this article, these conclusions are based on empirical evidence. Figures 7, 8, 9, and 10 below show how little these two metrics affect customersatisfaction, yet how much they can increase your costs if driven too low.Please keep in mind that ASA and Call Abandonment Rate are not the only “low value” metrics tracked by many call centers. Figure 3 above shows 25+ of the most common metrics tracked by call centers, and the vast majority of these metrics fall into the same category as ASA and Call Abandonment: they add little if any value. Again, if you keep in mind the 80/20 rule of call center performance measurement, and focus on the five metrics identified in the previous section, you can operate your call center very efficiently and effectively.Benchmark Performance RangesAs a company that provides online benchmarks to companies worldwide, and across all major industries, MetricNet relies extensively on benchmarking to establish performance goals and targets for its call center clients. For the five most important call center metrics, Figure 11 below provides a number of valuable benchmarks that may be useful in establishing performance targets for your call center.ConclusionMost call centers commit two major mistakes when it comes to performance measurement: 1) they track too many metrics, and 2) they do not exploit the full potential of their performance metrics as a diagnostic tool.In this article we have shown that you can effectively track and trend your call center performance using just five KPI’s. The two “foundation metrics” that every call center should track on an ongoing basis are Cost per Call and Customer Satisfaction. The nexttwo metrics in the top five are the ones that have the greatest influence on cost and customer satisfaction: Agent Utilization and First Contact Resolution. And the final metric, what we call an aggregate metric because it provides an overall measure of call center performance, is the Balanced Score.These five metrics not only allow you to effectively measure your call center performance, but they enable you to:Track and trend performance over timeBenchmark performance vs. industry peersIdentify strengths and weaknesses in the call centerDiagnose and understand the underlying drivers of performance gapsPrescribe actions to improve performanceEstablish performance goals for both individuals, and the call center overall When it comes to call center measurement and management, less really is more! By tracking just five KPI’s, and using these KPI’s diagnostically to affect positive change in the call center, the job of guiding your call center towards world-class performance can be greatly simplified.Due to space limitations, this article barely begins to scratch the surface on the topic of call center performance metrics. In subsequent articles, MetricNet will continue its series on Successful Benchmarking for the Call Center, with articles on:Benchmarking Peer Group Selection: How to Ensure a Fair, Apples-to-Apples Comparison in Your Call Center BenchmarkThe Benchmarking Performance Gap: Diagnosing the Causal Factors Behind Your Call Center’s Performance GapsThe Cost vs. Quality Tradeoff: How Benchmarking Can Help You Achieve the Right Balance Between Cost and Quality in Your Call CenterThe Benchmarking Payoff: How to Build a Hard-Hitting Action Plan From Your Call Center BenchmarkStay tuned for next month’s article!About the AuthorsThe authors of this article, Jeff Rumburg and Eric Zbikowski, are both Managing Partners at MetricNet, the premier provider of performance metrics, benchmarks, performance reports, and scorecards for corporations worldwide.Jeff Rumburg is a co-founder and Managing Partner at MetricNet, LLC. Jeff is responsible for global strategy, product development, and financial operations for the company. As a leading expert in benchmarking and re-engineering, Mr. Rumburg authored a best selling book on benchmarking, and has been retained as a benchmarking expert by such well-known companies as IBM, Bank of America, and General Motors. Prior to co-founding MetricNet, Mr. Rumburg was president and founder of The Verity Group, an international management consulting firm specializing in IT benchmarking. While at Verity, Mr. Rumburg launched a number of syndicated benchmarking services that provided low cost benchmarks to more than 1,000 corporations worldwide. Mr. Rumburg has also held a number of positions of increasing responsibility at META Group, and Gartner, Inc. As a vice president at Gartner, Mr. Rumburg led a project team that reengineered Gartner's global benchmarking product suite. And as vice president at META Group, Mr. Rumburg's career was focused on business and product development for IT benchmarking. Mr. Rumburg's education includes an M.B.A. from the Harvard Business School, an M.S. magna cum laude in Operations Research from Stanford University, and a B.S. magna cum laude in Mechanical Engineering. He is author of A Hands-On Guide to Competitive Benchmarking: The Path to Continuous Quality and Productivity Improvement, and has taught graduate-level engineering and business courses.Eric Zbikowski is a co-founder and Managing Partner at MetricNet, LLC. Eric oversees all of worldwide sales, marketing and operations, and assists in the direction of MetricNet's global enterprise. Mr. Zbikowski is a knowledgeable leader with nearly 15 years experience in operational management, customer service and performance benchmarking. Previously, he was The Director of Operations, Worldwide Sales and Services at MicroStrategy - a leading enterprise software company. There, he ran worldwide sales operations and assisted in the execution of an overall sales strategy. Prior to that, he was Director of Sales and Marketing at The Corporate Executive Board - a global research firm focusing on corporate strategy for senior executives. Previously, he was a Vice President of Consulting at META Group - a leading information technology research and advisory services firm, where he helped create and launch META Group's Call Center Benchmark for Energy Utilities and fulfilled numerous help desk, call center and customer satisfaction engagements for Fortune 2000 companies. Prior to joining META Group, Mr. Zbikowski worked at The Bentley Group, A TSC Company, where he managed and directed the Information Services Division, focusing primarily on customer satisfaction, competitive analysis and performance benchmarking. Mr. Zbikowski also spent 3 1/2 years at Gartner Group, where he was well-published in performance benchmarking. There, he served as a regular speaker at conference seminars and co-created/launched a quality-management, customer-satisfaction benchmarking service used by CIOs of Fortune 500 companies. Mr. Zbikowski is also extensively involved in the community and is Co-Founder and Vice Chairman of The Board and Chairman of The Development Committee at The Computer Corner, a nonprofit community technology center in Washington DC. The Computer Corner continues to be rated "one of the finest small charities Greater Washington has to offer" by The Catalogue for Philanthropy. Mr. Zbikowski graduated cum laude in Economics from The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, with a dual concentration in entrepreneurialmanagement and marketing.For More InformationFor more information on MetricNet, go to , e-mail us at info@, or call us at 703-992-7559.。
呼叫中心绩效考核方案
-不合格：进行谈话提醒，制定改进计划，连续三个月不合格者考虑调整工作岗位。
五、持续改进
1.定期评估：对考核方案进行定期评估，根据业务发展及市场变化调整考核指标和目标值。
2.培训提升：加强员工业务知识和沟通技巧培训，提高服务质量和工作效率。
3.优化流程：持续优化工作流程，简化业务操作，提高工作效率。
-销售额：以月为单位，计算坐席人员所负责业务板块的销售额，目标值为XX万元及以上。四 Nhomakorabea考核流程
1.数据收集：由呼叫中心管理人员负责收集各项考核指标数据，确保数据的真实、准确、完整。
2.数据分析：对收集到的数据进行分析，找出存在的问题和不足，为制定改进措施提供依据。
3.绩效评价：根据考核指标和目标值，对坐席人员进行绩效评价，分为优秀、良好、合格、不合格四个等级。
4.团队建设：加强团队凝聚力，提升团队协作能力。
六、附则
1.本方案自发布之日起实施，如有变更，将提前通知全体员工。
2.本方案解释权归呼叫中心管理部门所有。
3.本方案旨在提升呼叫中心整体业绩，请全体员工予以支持和配合。
2.服务质量：
-客户满意度：通过问卷调查、在线评价等方式收集客户满意度数据，目标值为XX%以上。
-投诉率：以月为单位，计算客户投诉次数与总通话次数的比率，目标值为XX%以下。
-流失率：以月为单位，计算客户流失数量与总客户数量的比率，目标值为XX%以下。
3.业务绩效：
-成单率：以月为单位，计算坐席人员成功完成的业务订单数量与总通话次数的比率，目标值为XX%以上。
4.反馈与沟通：将绩效评价结果及时反馈给坐席人员，与其进行沟通，指出不足之处，共同制定改进计划。
呼叫中心KPI指标常见的19条指标
呼叫中心KPI指标常见的19条指标每个呼叫中心都有自己的KPI指标，指标的数量各不相同，有的多到一百多个，有的少到只有三五个。
这里介绍常用的19个KPI指标。
KPI值应有挑战性，即应略高于现有水平或至少不低于现有水平，要对完成上一级目标有所贡献并成为完成上一级目标的主要推动力。
一、接通率：接通率是指IVR终级服务单元的接通量与人工座席的接通量之和与进入呼叫中心的呼叫总量之比。
对于呼出式业务来说，接通率是指座席呼出电话后接通量与呼出电话总量二、呼入项目占有率：一般是指某段统计时间内，座席员处理多通电话的总时长与实际登录系统时长的比率。
对于没有座席操作系统的来说，占有率统计就比较困难，但是也可以通过对通话时长、在线等待时长、后处理时长、等待来话时长来进行粗略统计三、呼出项目工作效率：一般指某段统计时间内，总处理时长与登录系统时长的比率。
对于没有座席操作系统的呼叫中心可以将分母换成计划工作时长。
四、服务水平：是指对于呼入项目来说，某个统计时间段内X秒内应答电话数量与呼叫中心接入电话的百分比。
五、顾客满意度：顾客满意度是指顾客对于呼叫中心提供的服务的满意程度。
六、客户满意度：客户对于呼叫中心来说是那些委托呼叫中心代表本企业为最终消费进行服务的那些族群。
客户满意度是指客户对呼叫中心提供的服务满意程度，一般客户关注的合同的完成质量和最终顾客的满意程度。
七、平均处理时间：座席在后处理时间里主要处理与通话有关的事务，呼叫中心应该致力于减少后处理时长，以控制呼叫成本。
减少后处理时长的主要措施有：加快座席的录入速度、优化座席操作系统使界面具有亲和力、操作简单，减少不必要工作流程等。
八、平均振铃次数：是某段统计时间内，呼叫者听到IVR或是人工座席接起电话之前的电话振铃次数之和与呼叫次数之比。
九、平均排队时间：是指在某段统计时间内，呼叫者ACD列入名单后等待人工座席回答的等待的平均等待时长。
十、平均排队时间：是指在某段统计时间内，呼叫者ACD列入名单后等待人工座席回答的等待的平均等待时长。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
呼叫中心各项指标（KPI）令狐采学目前呼叫中心越来越趋向精细化、数字化管理，KPI管理成为一种有效的管理手段。
通常，呼叫中心的运营管理者们通过分化运营目标制订各种KPI指标，通过KPI指标来引导座席代表行为，从而达到完成项目运营目标。
年夜部分呼叫中心采取呼叫中心集成系统和座席操纵系统，另外还有强年夜的运营管理系统进行数据支持，所以为实行数字化管理奠定了良好的基础。
KPI 的英文名字是Key Performance Indications，即指关键绩效指标，是通过对组织内部某一流程的输入端、输出真个关键参数进行设置、取样、计算、阐发，衡量流程绩效的一种目标式量化管理指标，是把企业的战略目标分化为可运作的远景目标的工具，是企业绩效管理系统的基础。
KPI合适一个重要的管理原理"二八原则"。
在一个企业的价值创作创造过程中，存在着"20/80"的规律，即20%的骨干人员创作创造企业80%的价值；并且在每一位员工身上"二八原理"同样适用，即80%的工作任务是由20%的关键行为完成的。
因此，必须抓住20%的关键行为，对之进行阐发和衡量，这样就能抓住业绩评价的重心。
每个呼叫中心都有自己的KPI指标，指标的数量各不相同，有的多到一百多个，有的少到只有三五个。
这里介绍经常使用的20个KPI指标。
这些KPI指标源于美国普度年夜学消费品质量监测中心琼·安插教授提出了23个与客户办事中心运营相关的数字化规范指标，根据目前行业软硬件的成长及所在公司的经验，进行重新的修改。
其中数据标准部分，一部分来源于行业标准，一部分来源于某些呼叫中心的历史数据。
可是，无论怎样制定这些标准，KPI 值应有挑战性，即应略高于现有水平或至少不低于现有水平，要对完成上一级目标有所贡献并成为完成上一级目标的主要推动力。
一、接通率界说：对具有IVR和ACD的呼入式呼叫中心，接通率是指IVR 终级办事单位的接通量与人工座席的接通量之和与进入呼叫中心的呼叫总量之比。
对呼出式业务来说，接通率是指座席呼出德律风后接通量与呼出德律风总量之比。
数据来源：这些数据可以从呼叫中心的CTI中全部提取出来，进行阐发统计。
行业标准：呼入式业务的接通率为≥80%，呼出式业务的接通率≥60%。
建议标准：呼入式业务的接通率≥85%，呼出式业务的接通率≥65%。
改进办法：呼入式业务是影响顾客满意度的一个重要的指标，与接通率相对应的是呼叫中心的顾客丧失率，如果接通率过低，说明有很多顾客无法接入呼叫中心，这会造成顾客的埋怨。
此时，管理者和质量管理者应该立即寻找接通率过低的原因，并采纳改进办法。
接通率过低一般由两种原因造成：一是呼叫中心的通信系统呈现问题，招致系统丧失顾客数据而使顾客无法接入到IVR或是人工座席。
另一个是相对呼入量来说呼叫中心的座席资源过少造成的。
呼叫中心为了尽可能的节省人工本钱，会牺牲一部分顾客，允许有一按时长的顾客等待或丧失。
可是管理者应该随时关注接通率状况，通过灵活调配座席资源使其坚持在规定的KPI值之内。
而对呼出式业务来说，接通率是数据质量的一个重要的体现，如果接通率过低的话，说明数据中有年夜部分数据的德律风是毛病的。
接通率过低会浪费呼叫中心的时间资源从而会浪费呼叫中心的人力资源。
当呼叫中心的呼出接通率过低的时间，管理者应该立即阐发接通率低的原因，如果可以排除呼叫中心技术系统的问题，管理者就需要关注数据质量，阐发数据质量，安插对数据库进行更新和维护，尽可能的包管数据的正确性，从而节省呼叫中心的外呼本钱。
数据更新的工作可以跟随每个项目的呼出任务同时进行，也可以安插呼叫中心的剩余人员进行数据核实，以包管数据质量。
二、呼入项目占有率界说：占有率是一个衡量呼入式业务座席工作负荷的指标，一般是指某段统计时间内，座席员处理多通德律风的总时长与实际登录系统时长的比率。
对没有座席操纵系统的来说，占有率统计就比较困难，可是也可以通过对通话时长、在线等待时长、后处理时长、等待来话时长来进行粗略统计。
数据来源：这些数据可以从CTI或是ACD中提取出来，进行阐发统计获得。
行业标准：≥90%建议标准：≥80%改进办法：占有率不但衡量座席员工作负荷率的重要指标，也是呼叫中心本钱控制的重要指标。
如果占有率过低，说明员工在空闲状态的时间过长，座席数量相对话务量来说配置过多。
占有率过高会招致员工过于劳累从而不克不及包管接通率。
所以当占有率过低的时间，管理者应该阐发原因，如果是人为因素，即座席歹意将德律风置忙或是做过多与工作无关的事务时，应该加强座席培训和监管。
如果不是人为因素，管理者需要及时减少座席资源，以使座席工作饱和。
如果占有率过高，管理就需要考虑增加座席数量了。
三、呼进项目工作效率界说：呼进项目的工作效率是衡量呼进项目座席工作负荷率的主要KPI，一般指某段统计时间内，总处理时长与登录系统时长的比率。
对没有座席操纵系统的呼叫中心可以将分母换成计划工作时长。
数据来源：这些数据可以从CTI或是ACD中提取出来，进行阐发统计获得。
行业标准：≥70%建议标准：≥80%改进办法：呼进项目工作效率不但衡量座席员工作负荷率的重要指标，也是呼叫中心本钱控制的重要指标。
如果工作效率过低，说明员工的工作不饱和。
所以当工作效率过低的时间，管理者应该阐发原因，如果是人为因素，即座席做过多与工作无关的事务时，应该加强座席培训和监管。
如果不是人为因素，管理者需要及时调整呼出的其它KPI，通过提高日呼出量或是胜利量的KPI值来提高工作效率，以最年夜化的利用座席资源，以使座席工作饱和。
如果占有率过高，管理就需要考虑减少其它KPI指标，以使座席免于过度疲劳。
四、办事水平界说：是指对呼入项目来说，某个统计时间段内X秒内应答德律风数量与呼叫中心接入德律风的百分比。
数据来源：可以从CTI或是ACD中直接提取。
行业标准：80%的德律风在20秒以内做出应答。
建议标准：95%的德律风在20秒以内做出应答。
改进办法：办事水平是衡量呼叫中心办事能力的重要指标，也是即影响客户满意度又影响呼叫中心本钱的关键指标。
呼叫中心在制定这个指标时，需要衡量满意度和本钱之间的关系。
如果指标定的过高会耗费呼叫中心年夜量的资源，过低会造成顾客等待时间过长，影响顾客的满意度。
座席数量的配置与办事水平直接相关，质量管理者要随时关注办事水平状况，及时进行座席数据调配，以使呼叫中心在坚持适当顾客满意度的基础上尽可能的降低本钱。
五、客户满意度界说：客户对呼叫中心来说是那些委托呼叫中心代表本企业为最终消费进行办事的那些族群。
客户满意度是指客户对呼叫中心提供的办事满意水平，一般客户关注的合同的完成质量和最终顾客的满意水平。
数据来源：按期对客户进行满意调查获得。
行业标准：无建议标准：需要使客户100%的对我们的办事结果满意，并再次签单。
改进办法：如果呈现客户对办事结果不满意，质量管理者需要与客户进行深度的访谈，对客户的办事需求进行再阐发和设计，制定严格的项目执行计划和控制计划，确保项目保质保量保时的完成。
客户的满意度对呼叫中心来说尤其重要，是呼叫中心的主要收益来源，呼叫中心的管理者和质量管理需要努力使办事超出客户的期望，深度开发客户的业务需求，提高客户的忠诚度。
六、顾客满意度界说：顾客对呼叫中心来说，是那些直接与呼叫中心话务员接触的企业最终的消费者们。
顾客满意度是指顾客对呼叫中心提供的办事的满意水平。
数据来源：按期对顾客户进行满意度调查获得或是使用IVR 进行在线调查。
行业标准：无建议标准：顾客满意度要达到85%以上。
改进办法：顾客的满意度直接会影响客户对呼叫中心的满意度，是呼叫中心质量管理的最为关键的两个指标之一。
影响顾客满意度的因素有很多，呼叫中心作企业的办事受托方，主要需要从办事态度、解决问题的能力、解决问题的周期、业务知识的熟练度等等方面进行管理。
如果顾客满意度下降，质量管理者需要对顾客满意度调查结果进行阐发寻找顾客不满意的原因，并着手改进。
可以通过加强监控、培训、现场指导、负强化等等手段来帮忙员工提高办事质量，从而提高顾客满意度。
七、平均处理时间界说：是指某一统计时段内，座席与顾客谈话时间、持线时间及事后处理与德律风相关工作内容的时间的总和除以总的通话量。
数据来源：可以从CTI或是ACD中直接提取。
行业标准：210330秒建议标准：60－180秒，可是不合业务需要制定不合的处理时间。
改进办法：平均处理时间是衡量呼叫中心单通德律风处理速度的重要指标，它的高低直接与呼叫中心员工的工作能力相关，影响呼叫中心的本钱。
呼叫中心在关注平均处理时间时，要分隔阐发谈话时长、持线时长和后处理时长。
谈话时长过短时可能不克不及有效解决顾客的问题，产生座席应付顾客的现象；谈话时长过长可能是座席的工作能力有问题，这个时间，质量管理者要加强监控，调出录音仔细阐发问题产生的原因。
座席在后处理时间里主要处理与通话有关的事务，呼叫中心应该致力于减少后处理时长，以控制呼叫本钱。
减少后处理时长的主要办法有：加快座席的录入速度、优化座席操纵系统使界面具有亲和力、操纵简单，减少不需要工作流程等。
八、平均振铃次数界说：是某段统计时间内，呼叫者听到IVR或是人工座席接起德律风之前的德律风振铃次数之和与呼叫次数之比。
数据来源：可以从CTI或是ACD中直接提取。
行业标准：23次建议标准：2次改进办法：平均振铃次数是影响顾客满意度的重要指标，顾客一般可以忍受的振铃次数为3次，不然会失去耐心而埋怨。
呼叫中心需要严格控制德律风振铃次数，以减少顾客等待时长，同时控制振铃次数也可以提高线路的使用率，从而节省呼叫中心的本钱。
质量管理需要经常检查这一个指标，如果不合乎要求，要及时采纳纠正办法。
可以通过对座席理念的培训、监控等等手段控制该指标。
九、平均排队时间界说：是指在某段统计时间内，呼叫者ACD列入名单后等待人工座席回答的等待的平均等待时长。
数据来源：可以从CTI或是ACD中直接提取。
行业标准：≤20秒建议标准：≤15秒改进办法：平均等待时长也是影响顾客满意度的重要指标，如果顾客等待时间过长，就会保持本次呼叫，并再次进行拨打，这个时间，不但使顾客产生埋怨，也增加了交换机的承担。
直接影响平均等待时长的因素主要有座席量和呼叫量的匹配、座席的平均德律风处理时长。
改进平均处理时长可以通过对这两个指标的改进行来实现。
十、监听合格率界说：是指在某段统计时间内，质量人数通过监控、德律风录音等手段抽查座席的办事质量的合格率。
数据来源：质检员统计。
行业标准：建议标准：99%改进办法：在呼叫中心监控、监听是办事质量管理的重要手段。
质量管理人员必须对所监听的德律风进行问题阐发，找出办事不合格的原因，通过录音共享、座席自我监听、培训等手段提高座席的办事意识和办事质量。