呼叫中心运营指标
呼叫中心运营关键指标及解析
呼叫中心运营关键指标及解析
解析：如果AHT过高，可能是因为代表们处理问题的速度较慢，需要进一步培训提高代表的技能水平。
另外，复杂的系统和流程也可能导致AHT增加，因此可以考虑简化流程或提供更好的工具和技术来帮助代表更快地解决问题。
2. 平均排队时间（Average Wait Time，AWT）：指客户在等待连接到代表时，平均所等待的时间。
AWT是一个重要指标，因为它可以衡量呼叫中心的响应速度和客户等待的满意度。
解析：如果AWT过高，可能意味着呼叫中心容量不足以满足客户的需求，需要增加更多的代表或提升呼叫中心的技术设施来减少客户等待的时间。
另外，优化呼叫流程和提供自助选项也有助于减少客户等待的时间。
解析：如果服务水平没有达到预定目标，可能是因为代表不足或呼叫中心容量不足。
可以通过增加代表或优化呼叫溢出策略来提高服务水平。
此外，提前分析客户的呼叫模式和增加自动化功能也可以帮助提高服务水平。
5. 客户满意度（Customer Satisfaction，CSAT）：通过对客户进行调查或评分来衡量客户对呼叫中心服务的满意度。
客户满意度是一个重要的指标，因为它可以反映呼叫中心的服务质量。
解析：如果客户满意度较低，可能是因为代表技能不足、服务水平不佳或呼叫中心流程需要改进。
可以通过提供专业培训、改善服务水平和优化流程来提高客户满意度。
综上所述，呼叫中心的关键指标包括平均通话时间、平均排队时间、服务水平、放弃率和客户满意度等。
通过监控和解析这些指标，可以评估
呼叫中心的运营情况，并采取相应的措施来提高呼叫中心的效率和客户满意度。
米领呼叫中心运营管理的衡量指标
呼叫中心管理,是目前国内呼叫中心运营商最感兴趣,同时也是感到头痛的事情。
管理指标已经成为量化管理的一个基础了，企业内部多多少少的设置了一些指标，以辅助管理。
运营管理指标是一个呼叫中心行业的日常管理的纲要,对于一个呼入为主的Smartcall来说,运营指标主要包括综合指标、效率指标和质量指标三大类。
其中，综合指标包括：来话接通率、一次性解决率、客户满意率、客户知晓率、以及员工满意度等。
在这其中，效率指标又作为一项重要的考核标准。
话务量的多少、坐席代表的在线利用率和工作时长利用率，人均每小时电话处理量都作为呼叫中心的日常管理指标。
至于质量指标，则是从员工招聘、培训、质检、投诉、系统等几个方面来说的，其中，招聘这个模块是占很大比例的，人员招聘及时率，到岗及时率以及新员工转正率都是一个标准，关于培训方面，则是按照培训满意度和按时完成率、培训出勤率、合格率来衡量，质检方面则是主要考核质检差错率，投诉在整个质量指标里面也占有重要的比重，主要有客户投诉率、投诉处理及时率和投诉处理满意度。
呼叫中心运营管理中的23个量化指标及相互关系9页word文档
呼叫中心运营管理中的23个量化指标及相互关系在实际工作中我也运用了国内外的一些先进的数字化指标，我将这几年来的所有数字化指标进行了分析和汇总，大致有以下与呼叫中心运营相关的23个数字化规范指标。
在不同行业其指标具体数值有所不同，但其计算方法和指标体系的设计思想则是呼叫中心运营管理的通用标准。
一、实际工作率：是一种测试客服代表是否如所计划的那样在他们岗位上工作的方法。
实际工作率的计算结果是一个百分比，它等于客服代表签入系统准备回答电话的实际时间除以客服代表按照计划应当回答电话的总时间，再乘以100。
实际工作率百分比数据一般来自ACD，并且应当每日都作一次报告，并按周和月进行追踪。
我曾经在运作一个外呼项目时做出测试：每个客服代表的最佳实际工作率应该达到92%或者更高。
如果员工实际工作率低于规定目标，应就以下几项内容进行调查：1．呼叫中心现场管理者，如现场主管或TL（TEAM LEADER）在教育与督促员工保持较高实际工作率方面可能做得不够；2．监管人员或质检人员可能不够，新员工没有得到及时指导和帮助；3．客服代表可能对规定有误解；4．缺勤率可能太高；5．相较于呼叫电话量，客服代表从事其他事情的时间可能太多；二、事后处理时间：指一次呼叫电话接听完后，客服代表完成与此呼叫有关的整理工作所需要的时间。
此数据也可从ACD得到。
这一规范应由小组或个人制成日表、周表和月表，还应该做成图形来与过去的记录进行比较。
我曾经做过长时间的测试，一般呼叫中心平均事后处理时间为60秒，建议目标是30秒至60秒。
三、平均放弃时间：指呼叫者放弃呼叫前平均等待的时间，以秒来计算。
我个人观点认为除非特殊需要，与其追踪这一数据，不如追踪放弃率更有价值。
此一数据也是由ACD收集，应每日和每周都做出报告。
据专业人士统计全行业平均时间为60秒，建议标准范围为20-60秒。
以下有两种情况：1．等待时间很短即放弃，表明顾客等待的耐心有限，原因可能是有其它呼叫中心可以选择，也可能是拨打时总是不成功。
呼叫中心管理指标
呼叫中心管理指标
–23个管理指标 –外拨活动指标
23个指标-平均交谈时间 (1)
平均交谈时间 ：
*指呼叫者与值机员联系后交谈的时间长度。
*建议交谈时间的目标应以270～60秒。
23个指标-事后处理时间(2)
事后处理时间： 事后处理时间：
* 即指一次呼叫电话接听完后，值机员完成与此 呼叫有关的整理工作所需要的时间。
总呼叫数 ：
*指所有打入中心的电话，包括受到阻塞的、中 途放弃的和已经答复的电话。
*不同的行业，不同性质的呼叫中心的业务量会 各不一样。
23个指标-服务水平 (8)
服务水平 ： *服务水平的计算公式是：回答时间少于X秒钟 (公司为15-20秒内)的电话数除以所接入的电话 总数乘以100。 *全行业大多数中心的标准是：80%的电话都是在 20秒钟之前作出的回答。 公司目标为在20秒内 应答的电话占比大于90%。
23个指标- 忙音率 (16)
忙 音 率 ：
*指受到忙音信号阻滞，连ACD都没有到达的呼叫 电话的百分数。
*全行业中受阻电话数为1%。我们建议努力目标 范围控制在1%～3%之间。最理想的状况是没有 受阻电话。
23个指标-呼叫放弃率 (17)
呼叫放弃率 ：
*放弃率是指放弃电话数与全部接通电话数的比 率。 *行业放弃率为3%，建议在3%～5%之间。
实际拨打次数 实际拨打次数 ： *指话务员实际外拨拨打的次数，包括接通的未 接通的电话。
*不同活动可制定每小时拨打次数进行考核。
外拨主要指标-拨通次数 (2)
拨通次数 ：
*所有拨通电话的次数之和，包括错号等。
外拨主要指标-成功拨打次数 (3)
成功拨打率 成功拨打率 ：
呼叫中心运营指标
一、引子呼叫中心的运营指标在呼叫中心运营过程中起着很重要的作用，包括考核运营情况、坐席状态等。
比如：振铃放弃量、15S 服务水平等指标可以考核坐席的工作。
排队挂机量、排队等待时长等指标可以判断坐席负荷情况。
各业务部门对运营指标会非常重视，因为会影响到他们的运营管理、员工管理和自身的绩效。
运营指标不准会给业务部门造成很大不便，运营管理混乱、对我们满意度极低、后期运维成本高等严重后果。
但是在实际上存在不同项目、不同系统，数据源的口径存在差异，也就可能会由于网络不稳造成数据丢包、或者系统集成度不高等情况导致数据不准，或者数据不一致的情况。
基于以上担心和考虑，不管是外购还是自建1、尽量选择整体方案，避免过多系统、过多项目、过多厂商参与。
减少集成度不高造成的丢包、数据丢失等情况；2、采购或者开发平台的过程中，要考虑运营指标是否可以实现的问题，比如是否可以判断客户挂机，还是坐席挂机等等。
3、各项目、各系统确保数据源头一致。
4、对无法避免的数据不准的情况，在报表数据计算时通过人为干预的办法处理。
同时要保存记录，以便开发可以查找问题。
5、话务报表系统也可以考虑做成一个独立的产品，交给各业务部门使用。
6、数据源头透明，向业务部门开放数据源头或提供数据明细，一旦业务人员对数据有疑问，可以随时查看数据源头。
二、指标含义（1）系统呼叫量：所有电话拨通的电话数（2）IVR接通量：进入IVR队列的电话数（3）IVR服务解决量（IVR客户放弃量）：在统计范围内只通过IVR服务没有转人工挂机的电话数（4）IVR请求转人工量：通过IVR请求转人工的电话数（5）IVR服务时长：IVR服务时长（6）平均IVR服务时长：IVR服务时长/ IVR接通量（7）IVR客户放弃量：同IVR服务解决量（8）转人工呼入量：同IVR请求转人工（9）人工接通量：在统计范围内座席发生通话的电话量（10）人工接通率：人工接通量/转人工呼入量×100%（11）排队挂机量：在统计范围内请求转人工但在锁定座席前挂断的电话数（12）振铃放弃量：在统计范围内请求转人工锁定座席发生座席电话振铃但座席没有发生通话的电话量（13）15秒内人工接通量：在统计范围内从请求转人工到座席接通电话的时间小于等于15秒的座席接通电话数（14）15秒内服务水平：15秒内人工接通量/人工接通量×100% （15）20秒内人工接通量：在统计范围内从请求转人工到座席接通电话的时间小于等于20秒的座席接通电话数（16）20秒内服务水平：20秒内人工接通量/人工接通量×100% （17）平均应答速度：在统计范围内，请求转人工开始到座席接起电话的时间和/人工接通量（18）平均排队时长：在统计范围内，请求转人工开始到锁定座席的时间和/转人工呼入量（19）平均振铃时长：在统计范围内，座席振铃开始到座席接起电话的时间和/人工接通量（20）超长振铃量：在统计范围内，座席振铃时长超过规定时长（比如4秒）的电话数（21）超长振铃率：超长振铃量/人工接通量×100%（22）呼入通话总时长：在统计范围内，座席接听电话的通话总时长（23）呼入平均通话时长：呼入通话总时长/人工接通量（24）呼入平均处理时长：在统计范围内，（呼入通话总时长+呼入话后整理总时长）/人工接通量（25）呼入话后整理总时长：在统计范围内，座席接听电话的整理状态总时长（26）呼入平均话后整理时长：呼入话后整理总时长/人工接通量（27）呼入放弃前平均等待时长：在统计范围内，请求转人工到电话挂断的时间和/排队挂机量（28）呼入放弃前最长等待时长：在统计范围内，请求转人工到电话挂断的最长时间（29）呼出电话量：在统计范围内，座席外呼电话电话数（30）呼出成功量：在统计范围内，座席外呼成功的电话数（31）呼出成功率：呼出成功量/呼出电话量×100%（32）通话总时长：在统计范围内，座席的通话总时长（包括呼入通话和呼出通话）（33）员工利用率：在统计范围内，工作总时长/签入总时长×100%。
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.。
呼叫中心指标的定义和应用
THANKS.
坐席工作量
坐席工作量
衡量坐席人员的工作负荷，包括处理电话的数量、时长以 及工作时长等。合理安排坐席工作量有助于保证坐席人员 的工作质量和效率。
坐席工作量计算公式
坐席工作量 = （处理电话数量 × 平均通话时长 / 工作时 长）× 100%。
调整坐席工作量的方法
根据话务量预测和实际话务量调整排班制度，合理安排坐 席人员的工作时长和休息时间，确保坐席人员有足够的精 力和时间处理电话。
详细描述
一次性问题解决率是衡量客户服务质量的重要指标，高的一次性问题解决率表明客户满意度高且减少了不必要的 重复沟通。企业应努力提高一次性问题解决率，提升客户体验。
平均通话满意度
总结词
平均通话满意度是指客户对每次通话 满意度的平均评价。
详细描述
平均通话满意度通常通过语音调查或 在线评价收集，是衡量呼叫中心服务 质量的关键指标。企业应关注平均通 话满意度，并采取措施改进服务质量 ，提高客户满意度。
详细描述
呼叫时长过短可能表明客户服务质量不高，客户问题未能得到充分解答；而呼 叫时长过长则可能增加客户等待时间和企业运营成本。因此，合理设置和监控 呼叫时长有助于提高呼叫中心效率和客户满意度。
呼叫放弃率
总结词
呼叫放弃率是指客户在等待或在与客服代表沟通时放弃呼叫 的比例。
详细描述
高呼叫放弃率可能表明客户对等待时间或服务质量不满意， 因此选择放弃。企业应关注呼叫放弃率，并采取措施降低这 一比例，如优化排队策略、提高客服代表的服务水平等。
分类：呼叫中心指标可以分为 两类，一类是运营指标，另一
类是客户满意度指标。
运营指标包括接通率、平均处 理时长、平均放弃时长等，用 于评估呼叫中心的运营效率和
呼叫中心服务指标
呼叫中心服务指标
1.首次响应时间（FCR）：该指标衡量的是客户呼叫后，呼叫中心多快能够有效地响应和解决客户问题。
较低的FCR可能会导致客户的不满和重复呼叫。
2.平均处理时间（AHT）：AHT表示平均每个呼叫中心代表处理一个客户呼叫所花费的时间。
较长的平均处理时间可能会影响呼叫中心的效率和服务质量。
3.服务水平（SL）：服务水平指的是在一定时间内呼叫中心代表能够在规定的时间内接听来电的百分比。
通常以在30秒内接听来电的百分比衡量。
较低的服务水平可能会导致客户等待时间过长，降低客户满意度。
5.呼叫丢失率：呼叫丢失率表示客户呼叫呼叫中心但无法接通的百分比。
较高的呼叫丢失率可能会导致客户流失和声誉受损。
6.客户满意度（CSAT）：CSAT是通过对客户进行调查评估客户对呼叫中心服务的满意度的指标。
通过定期进行客户满意度调查，呼叫中心可以了解客户对服务的评价，并根据反馈做出改进。
9.呼叫等待时间：该指标衡量的是客户在呼叫中心等待接听的平均时间。
较长的呼叫等待时间会导致客户不满和流失。
10.呼叫处理效率：该指标衡量的是呼叫中心代表在处理客户呼叫时的效率，包括呼叫接听速度、问题解决速度等。
提高呼叫处理效率可以提高呼叫中心的运作效率。
以上是一些常见的呼叫中心服务指标，通过对这些指标的监控和评估，呼叫中心可以了解自己的绩效表现，及时发现问题并采取改进措施，提升
呼叫中心的服务质量和客户满意度。
- 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)。
呼叫中心运营指标
如何有效地实施专业化管理，改善服务质量、提高客户满意度和盈利能力，已成为呼叫中心管理者们亟待解决的问题。
与呼叫中心运营相关的数字化规范指标如下：
一、实际工作率：是一种测试客服代表是否如所计划的那样在他们岗位上工作的方法。
实际工作率的计算结果是一个百分比，它等于客服代表签入系统准备回答电话的实际时间除以客服代表按照计划应当回答电话的总时间，再乘以100。
应当每日都作一次报告，并按周和月进行追踪。
二、事后处理时间：指一次呼叫电话接听完后，客服代表完成与此呼叫有关的整理工作所需要的时间。
这一规范应由小组或个人制成日表、周表和月表，还应该做成图形来与过去的记录进行比较。
三、平均放弃时间：指呼叫者放弃呼叫前平均等待的时间，以秒来计算。
据专业人士统计全行业平均时间为60秒，建议标准范围为20-60秒。
以下有两种情况：1．等待时间很短即放弃，表明顾客等待的耐心有限，原因可能是有其它呼叫中心可以选择，也可能是拨打时总是不成功。
两者都值得引起重视，并采取措施。
2．检查放弃的数目、没有拨通的情况的排队的时间，看是否存在呼叫者拨不进来的情况。
四、平均单呼成本：等于某段时间内中心所花的全部费用除以这段时间中心所接听的所有电话数，它包括无论何种理由打入的无论什么电话，不管是由客服代表接听的，还是由技术系统接听的。
打入的电话数将有ACD所做的记录，呼叫中心总费用可以从财务
取得。
呼叫中心管理层应该每周对此都做一次检查和计算。
行业不同，此一规范的数字变化很大。
五、平均通话时间：指谈话时间和事后处理时间的总和。
ACD将会提供这一规范的数据。
应该每天都计算，每周、每月都统计。
设计一个由客服代表、小组和中心自己制定好格式的平均通话时间报告，做出曲线图来表示情况的变化。
六、平均持线时间：客服代表让顾客在线上等待的平均时间。
ACD会提供每一客服代表的持线时间数据，并给出平均值。
每日、每周、每月报告和图示这一规范，并每周、每月进行一次管理上的考察。
七、平均振铃次数：指顾客听到回话之前电话铃振响的次数，不论这个电话是由客服代表、还是IVR回的。
此数据资料也是由ACD收集，每天都作报告，以便中心管理人员参考，或应呼叫者满意程度测试计划所需要。
一般要求现场管理者在现场要做到平均振铃次数应该保持在最低，尽管高峰期可能会有所增加，因此应该经过讨论来确定次数。
此外，还可以将铃振次数作为掌握排队时间的一个准则。
八、平均排队时间：指呼叫者被ACD列入名单后等待客服代表回答的时间。
ACD能按照适用或呼叫类型将所有到达中心的电话记录下来，可以将这一数字每日、每周和每月公布给员工们看。
九、平均应答速度：指总排队时间除以所回答的总电话数。
此规范也可直接得自ACD，应以半小时为单位进行报告，并以图表显示走势。
平均应答速度过高意味着以下几点：
1、事后处理时间超出了目标规定；
2、持线时间比预期的要高；
3、呼叫量的预测不准确；
4、计划实际工作率不够。
十、平均交谈时间：指呼叫者与客服代表联系后交谈的时间长度。
一般要求现场管理者每周和每月评估一次。
如果客服代表的业务活动是特意根据呼叫类型分组进行的，则此一规范对于管理的用处更大。
十一、每小时呼叫次数：指每个客服代表每小时接待呼叫的平均次数。
它等于一个交接班中，客服代表接听的电话总数除以他/她接入电话系统后的总时数。
在运营管理中要求客服代表每天报告一次。
并且要求班组长对自己的班组成员做好详细记录。
十二、监听分值：指由质检专员对客服代表的回话质量所做的等级评价。
可以设计各种表格对客服代表的话务质量进行评估并每个月上报给相关负责人。
十三、占线率：占线率等于（通话时间+持线时间）除以（通话时间+持线时间+闲置时间）乘100。
报表计算一般是按班组和客服代表加以平均。
十四、呼叫放弃率：一个放弃电话是指已经被接通到呼叫中心，但又被呼叫者在客服代表、呼出电话员和信息通知部接听之前自动挂断了的电话。
放弃率是指放弃电话数与全部接通电话数的比率。
报告应该每日、每周和每月都作。
必须确定“短时放弃”的时间长度到底是多少，并保证将这一数据在报表中清除掉。
“短时放弃”按通常标准是20秒或者更少。
十五、出勤率：指一个班组实际工作的人数除以计划工作的人数乘100。
这一数据的议案可以通过打卡机或门禁设施得来。
如果出勤率较低，一般是检查缺工原由和与缺工员工谈话，了解所存在的个人问题。
十六、忙音率：指受到忙音信号阻滞，连ACD都没有到达的呼叫电话的百分数。
应该每小时检查一次，看看受阻高峰出现在哪里。
十七、一次性解决问题的呼叫率：指不需要呼叫者再呼、也不需要客服代表回呼就将问题解决了的电话的百分数。
十八、队列放置率：即列入排队名单的电话数量除以中心所接到的所有电话的数量再乘以100。
每周计算和检查一次。
十九、转接呼叫率：由客服代表转给其他人员接听的电话的百分比。
每天、每周和每月进行报告，并附带上客服代表的反馈信息，要确定究竟是什么原因造成了转接。
二十、应答电话百分比：等于回答过的电话数除以所有接入的电话数乘100。
现场管理者每日报告一次。
二十一、服务水平：服务水平的计算公式是：回答时间少于X秒种的电话数除以所接入的电话总数乘以100。
服务水平应该建立在不断监听的基础上，因为这一规范预示着所存在的主要问题。
目前大多数呼叫中心的标准是：80%的电话都是在20秒钟之前做出回答。
二十二、总呼叫数：指所有打入中心的电话，包括受到阻塞的、中途放弃的和已经答复的电话。
应当每小时、每天、每周、每月都进行检查。
二十三、客服代表流动率：指一月、一季或一年中离开中心的客服代表人数在全时工作总人数中的比例。
此数据则由人力资源专员提供，应该每月和每季度都进行查验、统计。
据专家统计，呼叫中心的行业平均辞职率为25%，现场管理者应该通过提升管理水平而将此数据控制在15%至30%之间。
作为一名呼叫中心运营管理者，要全面掌握每个指标的含义、计算方法、数据来源、受控因素等，唯有如此才能很好的把控这些指标，才能通过有效的措施不断地提升指标，继而保证呼叫中心整体运营水平。