Interventions in Customer Centres through Benchmarking and Networking
This paper outlines the intention and preliminary results of a Danish research and development project. The aim of the project is to investigate the possibilities for improving the psychological working environment for employees in call centres through benchmarking activities in networks.
Benchmarking is often associated with competition and the idea that there exists an actual “best
practice” that anyone could employ to their own advantage. The ambition of this project is to supplement this with an approach that is oriented towards learning. The intervention attempts to balance off the element of competition and the focus on a common standard with the consideration of
the unique identity and specific problems of every customer center.
Background and method
Call centres, or customer centres (CC), are characterized by the efficiently organized servicing of
customers, primarily via telephone, but increasingly through different electronic channels such as
mail, chat, etc. The customer center can be a part of a company and service the company’s own
customers, so called in-house services. It can also be an independent company that services customers from other companies, who buy the services from the customer center, also called independent
or subcontractor CC. The customer center can answer calls from customers (inbound), contact customers or potential customers (outbound), or attend to both functions. Whereas CC previously were
mainly to be found in private companies, today, public organizations and administrations increasingly use this type of production.
Today, integrated telephone and internet technology enable cost efficient planning and customer
servicing. This combined with a management culture with a strong focus on digits and control
means that the working environment in many CC is characterized by surveillance, control, and a
lack of influence and development opportunities for the employees (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Work in CC is
generally held in low esteem. As a consequence, sick leave and staff turnover is high in many CC.
Previous research has shown that it is possible, within the technological and organizational concept
of the CC, to develop work in a way so as to improve the working environment for employees,
while simultaneously maintaining or improving the quality of service and efficiency (5, 7, 8).
A three year intervention project (2007 – 2010) financed by the Danish working environment research foundation builds on these experiences.
Company
Line of business
Nordea
CSC
ISS Aarhus
SKAT (public)
TNT
Helsingør Kommune
(public)
CCE
Bank/financing
IT
Mixed
Tax
Transport
Citizen service centre
ISS Kbh
Mixed, primarily
telephone services
Mixed
Type of customer centre
In-house
Subcontractor
Subcontractor
In-house
In-house
In-house
Type of
calls
Inbound
Inbound
Outbound
Inbound
Inbound
Inbound
Subcontractor
Inbound
300 (many are part time)
Subcontractor
Inbound
100
Table 1 Customer centres participating in the actual project
Size (approximate number of
employees in call centre)
200
40
200 (many of these are students)
400
60
60
The project “Improving working conditions in call centres through benchmarking and networking
(in Danish abbreviated as “AMICA”) is implemented in cooperation with DTU (Technical University of Denmark), NFA (National Research Centre for the Working Environment) and TeamArbejdsliv (Team Work Life). In the project, 8 very different CC (in the table above) are involved in a
network, in which they are benchmarked on the psychosociall working environment of the employees.
Why benchmarking and networking?
In short, benchmarking can be defined as “a systematic comparison between organizational units
(...) with one or more specific purposes” (9, our translation).
As stated, the intention of this project is to benchmark in order to improve the working environment
and terms of work in CC. Thus, we introduce the working environment as a (new) comparative parameter. Benchmarking efficiency and productivity is generally extended within and between CC,
and as such we introduce the working environment in a language familiar to management and employees.
Our measures of the working environment are based on a questionnaire about the psychosocial
working environment, developed by NFA1, supplemented with a number of questions directed specifically towards the CC. These questions have been developed by the research team in a previous
research project (5, 6). Beyond introducing a measure for benchmarking, we also introduce a norm
for “the good working environment”, without actually presenting the companies with fixed solutions or unequivocal “best practices” - an approach which emphasizes the learning dimension rather
than the control dimension in the benchmark methodology (9).
Simultaneously, we offer the CC a new context: a network in which they can be inspired, through
benchmarking, by other CC. As such, the network is conceptualized as an incitement and motivation for every customer centre to implement concrete changes. As they are all CC – with the specific terms of work associated with this form of production – we would assume that they, despite differences, will recognize conditions of their own working environment in the other CC. It is our assumption that this recognition will lead them to be more open to the inspiration offered by working
environment solutions of other CC.
The establishment of network as a specific “agent of change” should be considered in light of the
fact that many CC are regarded as an appendix to the core of the organization. Physically they are
often situated in a remote location, and organizationally and culturally there is a tendency to consider their services and employees as secondary when compared to the core. Developing a project and
a network which specifically attends to the CC, it is the intention to provide the management and
employees of the CC with the experience of partaking, as a company or organizational unit in their
own right.
The methodology of the project
The planned activities of the project are outlined in figure 1 below. The activities of every customer
centre are followed through the process by a member of the research team.
”Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire“ to be downloaded from:
http://www.arbejdsmiljoforskning.dk/upload/english_copsoq_2_ed_2003-pdf.pdf)
1
The intervention
The competitive aspect was introduced from the very beginning as the companies had to “apply” to
take part in the project. As there was a very strong interest in partaking in the project, the involved
companies have already “won”, so to speak. The selection of the CC was based on the wish for the
greatest diversity in terms of the CC’ tasks, ownership, size, and geographic location, but not the
working environment as such. Thus, the eight CC have been chosen, not because their working environment is either good or bad, but because they have an interest in improving their actual working
environment.
The competition introduced with the benchmarking method has not been instrumental. As we have
already mentioned, the emphasis in the project has been on the learning perspectives, rather than
maneuvering the companies towards the same goal. In a workshop, every company was presented
with their own results in the questionnaire held up against the average of all project companies as
well as the best and worst scores. Then the project group was instructed to point out at least 3 areas
that they were particularly proud of, and where they believed to have something to offer to the other
companies. Not until then were they instructed to point out 3 areas where they, based on the results
believed they could learn from the other companies. As a consequence, even companies with predominantly “red” results (i.e. those diverging markedly negatively from the average) maintained a
focus on the available resources on which to build. Accordingly, the very “green” CC (i.e. those
diverging markedly positively from the average) paid attention to the possible areas of improvement, even if they were “ahead in the field”, so to speak.
In the benchmark seminar, all companies took part in sessions where they took turns offering valuable experiences, respectively were interested in learning from others. The companies’ results were
not hidden from the other companies. But the focus from our side was not a comparison of the
companies on a numerical scale, but the possibilities for learning and ways in which to be inspired
from each other.
In the project, involvement was the goal as well as the means. It was our goal that employees were
actively engaged in the project, as involvement is a very important part of the psychosocial working
environment, and because generally, it is in short supply in CC. We demanded that the employees
were involved in the CC’ project group and in the cross company network groups if we were to
support them. We believe that involving those affected by the process gives way for better and more
durable solutions. Furthermore, we wanted to demonstrate to the companies that the trust you show
employees, involving them in the process, is rewarded with engagement and responsibility. Our
approach to our own role has been that of role models for the activities of the CC. Our motto has
been: Practice what you preach.
Experiences and observations up till now
Of course, one thing is the intentions and endeavours we as consultants and researchers have had
with the project. Quite another is the way in which the companies have filled out the context established by us. In the following, we aim to throw a reflective glance at our experiences and observations up till now.
Benchmarking as an opportunity for self-reflection
In the benchmark seminar, there was a clear tendency for one of the eight CC to stand out as the
“paragon of virtue”. The other CC soon came to realize that this was a company that was far advanced when it came to integrating the customer centre organization with considerations of the
working environment. Everybody was very interested in learning about their experiences and organization. However, characteristically, in the feedback from all CC after the seminar, everybody felt
that they could make valuable contributions. Or as several employees put it: “Somebody is worse
off than we are!” Whether the customer centre is in the red or green end of the results of the questionnaire, management and employees have left the seminar with a feeling that they were on the
right course. In this way, benchmarking with the other centres has worked as a mirror in which every customer centre could reflect themselves, thereby becoming more aware of who they were and
where they were going.
The question is whether this, in a working environment and change perspective, is to be considered
a positive result of benchmarking? If you see benchmarking as a question of setting a common
standard across companies in order to define the “one best way”, then no, maybe you can’t. In this
case, you necessarily have to see the generally positive self image as adverse.
Competition and local anchorage – finding the balance between uniformity and difference
In the light of our ambition to apply a leaning approach to benchmarking, the increased selfreflection and self-understanding of the companies would indicate that many efforts have led to
success. Not the least because the immediate self-sufficiency has not led the individual project
groups to “twiddling their thumbs”. On the contrary, the benchmark seminar seems to have inspired
and motivated each customer centre to start in the areas of their choice. In our interpretation, this is
to the credit of this particular form of intervention, that the traditional understanding of benchmarking and best practice: that all adopt the same method, organization or technology, has been put aside
here to the effect that every customer centre assess what will work for them in their specific context.
Input and inspiration from the other centres have been transformed locally to initiatives based on
the existing practice and context. At the present time, the CC work with themes such as: From a
focus on sickness to a focus on health; the establishment of self-governing groups; and the possibilities for moving from a focus on digits to a greater focus on customers and quality of the service.
Through benchmarking, it has proved possible to elucidate and recognize the specific virtues of a
customer centre without immediately trying to copy their efforts in the other centres. The element of
competition, inevitably implying comparison and ranking, has worked as a motivation, escaping the
consequent reduction to an unreflected adoption of a standardized practice. This is illustrated precisely through the simultaneous experience in the companies of being very similar and very different. This recognition points to the importance of the common and traverse aim in the project intervention (with reference to the categories of the questionnaires and the idea of benchmarking as a
reference), while simultaneously working consciously with the identity and specific problems of
every company (by way of company workshops and engaging dialogue in the ongoing process).
Involvement – the course is set for employees
One of the tendencies which stands out most clearly across the CC is the general increased awareness of employee involvement. In the light of the projects intention to work, based on a high degree
of involvement, it has been very positive to see the degree of active employee involvement in the
process. Not least in view of the general tendency in the customer centre area, where employees are
primarily seen as “pure” labour or manpower and less as a resource or “knowledge fund” to be implicated in the continuous development of the companies. During the project, and not least in the
benchmark seminar, the management has had a rare opportunity to experience their employees’
dedication to their work. This experience demonstrated that given the proper circumstances, employees are very loyal and eager to contribute to the positive development of their work and working place.
Conclusion: midway reflections
In light of the current results, it would seem that benchmarking and networking across different CC
have a positive effect. The benchmark method seems to have created a healthy competition and
simultaneously a commitment and engagement in the individual company, both on an employee and
a managerial level. The fact that several centres are joined, working towards the same goal, simply
increases motivation and energy. At the same time, there are indications that the involving and dialogue-based intervention in the CC has facilitated a change in the individual CC. However, it is difficult to make any final conclusions, as the project is only halfway through the process.
Obviously, the million dollar question is to what extent the strategies to improve the working environment and involve employees more are realized, and if implemented, will they stretch beyond the
project and employee representatives presently involved in running the process. Will the project
leave permanent traces in the ongoing organization of the CC? Will they actually invest the necessary time to the maintenance of the working environment and the employees that is needed with a
continuous working environment focus? Will they only go for the “low hanging fruits” in terms of
quick results, or will they succeed in taking terms with more extensive changes? Will the cooperation and the networks established between the CC work as “drivers” in the continuous work – even
beyond the project period - or will it only happen while the consultants are still there to keep the
steam going? As researchers, we have an important role identifying the factors in the individual
companies that are effective when bringing about changes in practice.
There are many questions. Hopefully, the research and development intervention in the next 1½
years will provide some of the answers. Answers that will not only give us a sense of whether
benchmarking and networking can be used as a form of intervention in the CC, but also indicate if
the methods can be implemented in other lines of business.
References
1) Sprigg, C.A.; Smith, P.R. & Jackson, P.R. (2003): Psychosocial risk factors in call centres: An
evaluation of work design and well-being, Research Report 169, Health and Safety Executive,
HSE Books, Suffolk
2) Toomingas, A. (2005): Working conditions and health at call centres in Gustafsson, R.Å. &
Lundberg, I. (eds.): Worklife and Health in Sweden 2004, Arbetslivsinstitutet, Stockholm
3) Norman, K. (2005): Call centre work – characteristics, physical and psychosocial exposure and
health related outcomes, Vetenskaplig Skriftserie Arbete och Hälsa 2005:11, Arbetslivsinstitutet, Stockholm
4) Toomingas, A.; Hagman, M.; Risberg, E.H. & Norman, K. (2003): Arbetsförhållanden och hales
vid ett urval av callcenterföretag i Sverige, Arbetslivsrapport 2003:10, Arbetslivsinstitutet,
Stockholm
5) Mathiesen, K.; Wiegman, I. & Møller, N. (2006): Udvikling af arbejdet i callcentre – sådan gik
det, Den Europæiske Socialfond, udgivet af Institut for Produktion og Ledelse, DTU, Lyngby
6) Mathiesen, K. & Wiegman, I. (2004): Arbejde og trivsel i call centre, Den Europæiske
Socialfond, udgivet af CASA, København
7) Moller, N; Mathiesen, K; Wiegman, I; Sørensen, O. H. (2008): Development of work in call centres, in Human Factors in Szenelwar, L.; Montedo, M. & U. (eds.) in Organizational Design and
Management – IX
8) Møller, N.; Wiegman, I. & Petersen, J.V. (2006): Drivsel – drift og trivsel i callcentre, Den
Europæiske Socialfond, udgivet af Institut for Produktion og Ledelse, DTU, Lyngby
9) Christensen, K. S. & Bukh, P. N. (2007): Kan benchmarking fremme læring og videndeling?,
Knowledge Management, Børsen Ledelseshåndbøger, Børsen Forum A/S