Hello All - This may seem like a silly question to those of you who are involved in training in your respective call centers (justify?? whaddya mean, justify? training is the glue that holds it all together!!) In the midst of tight budgets and all, how does one go about helping the upper management types (most of whom have never set foot in the call center...) understand that trying to cut costs up front by asking us to train in less and less time will cost us dearly down the road? I think the 'down the road' costs are harder to calculate, but it is pretty easy to figure out how much it costs to train a new hire. If we run 'em through the mill as quickly as possible so that we can get them out onto the floor (where they are generating revenue by answering the phone) they will be crappy employees who need constant tending and refresher training and coaching, more than would be usual even with new hires. Any help? Why is training always the first department to feel the effects of a budget crunch??

Rachel, good question. If I may:
When it is time (and it seems to often be 'time') to cut expenses in a call center, the very first place that seems to get chopped to bits is in the training area. A few reasons for this. First, executive level people tend to look at training as a perk at best, a semi-necessary evil at worst. Second, training is 'non-productive paid time' for their agents. Not only that, the costs of supporting a training department include equipment, supplies and salaries (lots of salary, right?). And training folks are great at helping you spend money for often intangible results (like "it's the right thing to do"). It only makes sense to begin cutting at the non-productive level.

Wait, don't shoot yet! The answerlies in your ability to tie training time to quantifiable performance metrics. Each component of your training curriculum should be designed to support one or more performance metrics, which are (or should be) tied to a budget. For instance, if you arespending three days on 'phone etiquette', you must tie the results of this training to improved customer service results. Or improved handling time by learning to control the call better. Or, or, or.

As a proponent of training, I will tell you that the best way to get execs off your back about shortening or eliminating training is to 'speak their language' - put it in quantifiable terms for them. An improperly trained agent isn't 'needy', they're 'expensive', or even better 'twice as expensive as a properly trained agent'. Shortening new hire training will 'increase the number of errors by 55%, and by the way, each error costs us an average of $250'. Stuff like that.

Hope this helps.
Brent

Hi Brent,
Welcome to CCV. You hit the bulls eye when you said that training has to be linked to performance metric. What is the use of training a man for hours on skills which he does not use to improve his performance. Training is worthless unless practised.

In India, the call centres are happy to have in-house training rather than outsource the same.reasons are obvious... costs. "Business=money generation"
If training is a cost, the best way to make management believe in training is by making the trained agent to be more productive. Vedula

Hi Rachel

It occurs to me that training is a ‘target’ simple because typically in organisations it is ‘generic’ i.e. not objectively focused on areas that will demonstrably make a difference.

Some truisms. Most companies have training budgets. Most companies use their training budget as a yardstick of their levels of ‘investment in people’. Most companies have NO IDEA how effective their spend is. Most companies have NO IDEA what training actually contributes to the bottom line.

Does this make training worthless? No it doesn’t. What it does do is make it a target exactly as described.

So, what’s to do?

Firstly, identify what is important to your customers - in terms of aiding them to spend more if a sales environment or less if it's a service environment.

Secondly, identify the gap between what is important to customers and your actual delivery.

Thirdly, identify a method of measuring what is needed to bridge that gap.

Lastly, train specifically to bridge the gap.

By following this methodology you will talk the lingo as Brent mentioned and perhaps more importantly be able to demonstrably link increased business with training and so safeguard it from the bean counters.

David

Rachel:

If possible, why not try the "ROI" method?

First, you need to identify your aims: what does conditions would your management / coworkers say need improvement? Once you can identify them, you will be able to construct a plan.

The easiest way is to test your employees in their aptitude or behavior for the skills you have identified as needing improvement. Obviously, this is easier to do with hard-skills than soft-skills: If you think you need to improve employees' use ofMicrosoft Excel, you can even buy (very inexpensively, like about $5 per test from MeasureUp) a test to find employees' current skill levels. After training, you give the test again, and measure the improvement. The difference is your "training ROI".

With soft-skills, you will have to use your call-quality measurements before and after training to show improvement. You need to make sure that QA is as objective as possible, though, if you want your results to be considered valid.

Testingis a good pre-employment tool, also, as you can establish a baseline for employees' skills and needs. If at all possible, especially at pre-employment time, make sure to use "psycometrically validated" and "legally defensible" tests. If you purchase tests that are psychometrically validated and legally defensible, you assure that applicants are taking a fair test, and that you are protected against liability.

Good luck.

Donna