Government Regulation of Service Levels for Telephone Company Call Centers in Canada Work in Progress .

Uploaded on:
Category: Sales / Marketing
Government Regulation of Service Levels for Telephone Company Call Centres in Canada – Work in Progress –. Armann Ingolfsson Samina Khandakar, Tarja Joro School of Business, University of Alberta Edmonton! Workshop on Call Centers, Montreal, May 11, 2006.
Slide 1

Government Regulation of Service Levels for Telephone Company Call Centers in Canada – Work in Progress – Armann Ingolfsson Samina Khandakar, Tarja Joro School of Business, University of Alberta Edmonton! Workshop on Call Centers, Montreal, May 11, 2006

Slide 2

Motivation How ought to arranging issues for call focuses be postured? Minimize cost, s.t. benefit level over a standard in each period Minimize cost, s.t. total administration level over a standard Answer relies on upon the setting For managed open utilities, answer relies on upon the type of value control

Slide 3

Related Literature Economics of value direction Highly adapted amusement hypothesis models Typical "company\'s issue:" Max benefit = P(x, q) x – C(x, q), s.t. q ≥ MQS x = amount, q = quality, P = value/unit, C = add up to cost Regulating telephone utility quality Institutional issues Little regard for operational issues – how to convey a particular level of value In financial terms: what is the structure of C(x, q)?

Slide 4

Telephone Companies in Canada NorthWestTel Telus Sask Tel MTS Bell Aliant

Slide 5

The Regulator: CRTC Regulates phone organizations, telecasters, link benefit Timeline: 1876: Bell licenses phone 1893: Rate control begins 1968: CRTC framed 1982: Service quality direction begins 1992: Long-remove rivalry 1993: Telecommunications act 1997: Local rivalry

Slide 6

How the Regulation Works Sixteen Quality-of-Service Indicators Each marker has a pass/fizzle standard Companies self-report at regular intervals Performance reported every month If beneath standard, firm should report month to month until standard met three months consecutively Penalties settled on a case-by-case premise

Slide 7

Call Center QoS Indicators 3 of 16 pointers are identified with call focuses: Access to business office Access to repair agency Access to catalog help Standard: 80% replied in ≤ 20 seconds

Slide 8

Questions What does it cost to meet the standard? How does benefit level change with time if standard is met at least cost? Impact of firm size 100 K – 20 M supporters Influence of staffing technique Constant use staffing Square root staffing What if the standard must be met each hour?

Slide 9


Slide 10

Assumptions Performance in hour t can be demonstrated as a stationary framework: M/M/s(t) (Erlang C), or M/M/s(t)+M (Erlang A) Single worker sort No booking issues No call volume conjecture instability

Slide 11

Notation l (i, t) = Arrival rate to organization i in hour t = n(i) a b (t)/250 n(i) = # of supporters for organization i a = avg. # of calls per supporter every year [0.5 – 2] b (t) = portion of day by day brings in hour t [Example from Green, Kolesar, and Soares (2002)] m = benefit rate [6 per hour] 1/g = avg. persistence [= 1/m = 10 min.]

Slide 12

More Notation r(i, t) = l (i, t)/m = Offered stack for organization i in hour t SL(i, t) = benefit level for organization i in hour t = Pr{Delay ≤ 20 seconds, served} SL(i) = total administration level for organization i = request weighted normal administration level

Slide 13

Staffing strategies Constant rate wellbeing staffing: Square root security staffing

Slide 14

Cost versus estimate [Erlang C]

Slide 15

Cost versus estimate [Erlang A]

Slide 16

Service Consistency versus Estimate [Erlang C]

Slide 17

Service Consistency versus Measure [Erlang A]

Slide 18

Example: Northwesttel [Erlang A]

Slide 19

Example: Bell [Erlang A]

Slide 20

Conclusions Costlier for littler firms to meet principles Performance might be far beneath standard at off-pinnacle hours, if firms meet total standard at least cost Incremental cost of meeting standard at extremely inconvenient times diminishes with size Constant rate less exorbitant than square root wellbeing staffing [For Erlang C. Not clear yet with Erlang A]

Slide 21

Further Work Benchmark: least cost staffing Finish Erlang An investigation Compare to control in different nations USA, Brazil

Slide 22

Discussion: Analysis Tools Erlang C: Queueing ToolPak (MS Excel work library) Demonstrate Erlang A: 4CallCenters programming How would it be advisable for us to "bundle" our apparatuses to amplify their utilization?

Slide 23

Discussion: Auditing Companies self report execution information How can/ought to organizations be reviewed?

Slide 24

Discussion: Auditing Approach 1: Use models to check whether self-reported information is conceivable Approach 2: "riddle guests" Approach 3: ?

Slide 25

Discussion: Auditing Brazil: organizations report inputs (entry rate, benefit rate, number of servers), controller utilizes model to register yield (SL), thinks about to reported yield How ought to this be finished? How frequently? For what time interim? Utilizing what show? At the point when ought to move be made?

Slide 26

Discussion: Data Reporting What information ought to directed organizations be required to report?

Slide 27

Discussion: Monitoring Manufacturing: SPC outlines to screen creation forms Why not for call focuses? Screen: Service times Abandonment rates Forecast blunders … What adjustments are required for utilizing SPC diagrams as a part of call focuses?

Slide 28

Discussion: SL Constraints Aggregate versus period-by-period Q: what\'s the estimation of consistency? Clients respond to discernment – desire Asymmetry: negative effect of not meeting desires likely bigger than positive effect of surpassing desires

Slide 29


Slide 30

Example: Northwesttel [Erlang C]

Slide 31

Example: Bell [Erlang C]

Slide 32

Cost of Constant SL [Erlang C]

View more...