stanford / mit benchmarking it help...

Stanford / MIT BenchmarkingStanford / MIT BenchmarkingIT Help DeskIT Help Desk

Final PresentationFinal Presentation

November 13, 2002November 13, 2002

1/5/052

AgendaAgenda Project GoalsProject Goals

Help Desk BenchmarkingHelp Desk Benchmarking–– Goals &Goals & benchmark metrics benchmark metrics

–– Initial data comparisonsInitial data comparisons

–– Findings & hypothesesFindings & hypotheses

–– Quick wins and lessonsQuick wins and lessons

–– Tools and timelines to get thereTools and timelines to get there

Benchmarking as a MethodologyBenchmarking as a Methodology

1/5/053

Benchmarking Project GoalsBenchmarking Project Goals

Help Desk SpecificHelp Desk Specific–– Enable comparisons between institutionsEnable comparisons between institutions–– Develop ongoing management toolDevelop ongoing management tool

»» Determine metricsDetermine metrics»» Develop initial comparisons & findingsDevelop initial comparisons & findings»» Identify tools needed, future plansIdentify tools needed, future plans

Benchmarking in Higher EducationBenchmarking in Higher Education–– Enable comparisons among schools and industryEnable comparisons among schools and industry–– Develop methodologyDevelop methodology–– Provide a test-caseProvide a test-case–– Develop strategy to expandDevelop strategy to expand

See additional context in Appendix 1 Project History & Goals

1/5/054

Benchmarks must tie toBenchmarks must tie tomanagement goalsmanagement goals

1.1. Support client needs with quality serviceSupport client needs with quality service

2.2. Be responsiveBe responsive

3.3. Be cost effectiveBe cost effective

4.4. Provide appropriate level of investmentProvide appropriate level of investment

5.5. Develop effective, mature processesDevelop effective, mature processes

6.6. Maintain high-performing, competent teamMaintain high-performing, competent team

7.7. Support rollout of new systemsSupport rollout of new systems

1/5/055

Goals must tie to specific metricsGoals must tie to specific metricsInvest Appropriately

• % of budget• Clients served/FTE

Be Cost Effective• Cost per case by topic• Total costs by topic• Cases by media, including

self-help

Be Responsive• Elapsed time per case• Call abandonment• Hold time• Time to answer

Support Customer Needswith High Quality Service

• Annual customer survey• Spot-surveys on selected

transactions

Develop Effective, Mature Processes• # of contacts vs. # of days to resolve• Origin of Help Desk cases

Develop High Performing,Competent Teams

• Employee satisfactn survey• Individual perf. metrics• Team performance metrics• Training $$ / FTE• % Help Desk certification• Case volume compared to

staff skills mixSupport Rollout of New Systems• Case volume by topic 3 months

before and after launch• Minutes per case

See Appendix 6 for discussion of specific data elements to calculate benchmarks

1/5/056

Caveat:Caveat:Best benchmarking is yet to comeBest benchmarking is yet to come Problems with Problems with historicalhistorical data data

–– AssumptionsAssumptions

–– ExtrapolationsExtrapolations

–– Simply missing some dataSimply missing some data

Similar but very different operationsSimilar but very different operations

Common metrics going forwardCommon metrics going forward

DonDon’’t focus too heavily on current data;t focus too heavily on current data;look to future!look to future!

1/5/057

Context for Comparison: Help Desk OperationsContext for Comparison: Help Desk Operations

Multiple, distributedMultiple, distributedSingle, separate locationSingle, separate locationLocationLocation

Distributed support modelDistributed support modelacross ITSSacross ITSS

Consolidated + unquantifiedConsolidated + unquantifiedsupport in acad. depts.support in acad. depts.

OrganizationOrganization

Heavy Web-formHeavy Web-formHeavy email 50%+Heavy email 50%+MediaMedia

Customized RemedyCustomized RemedyHome-grown JavaHome-grown JavaToolTool

1 published #, then phone tree1 published #, then phone tree4 phone numbers4 phone numbersACDACD

Full-time assignmentsFull-time assignments2-4 hour blocks; many 2-4 hour blocks; many stdtsstdtsStaffingStaffing

Individual officesIndividual officesCubes + Cubes + ““call centercall center””OfficesOffices

Tier 1 & 2Tier 1 & 2

(10 min limit Tier 1)(10 min limit Tier 1)Single unit; junior/seniorSingle unit; junior/seniormixed; informal limit 15 minmixed; informal limit 15 min

StructureStructure

StanfordStanfordMITMIT

See more details in Appendix 3. “How Each Help Desk Works”

1/5/058

Context for Comparison: FY 02 SizingContext for Comparison: FY 02 Sizing

29%29%56,125 56,125 2243,55343,553Tickets ProcessedTickets Processed

-32%-32%18.6 18.6 2227.327.3Full Time Staff (FTE)Full Time Staff (FTE)

5%5%$x $x 22$x$xAnnual Base BudgetAnnual Base Budget

No StudentsNo StudentsWith StudentsWith StudentsHelp Desk InformationHelp Desk Information

59%59%430 430 11270270Full Time Staff (FTE)Full Time Staff (FTE)

83%83%$x $x 11$x$xAnnual Base BudgetAnnual Base Budget

IT Department InformationIT Department Information

26%26%$1,937,900$1,937,900$1,535,949$1,535,949University Consolidated BudgetUniversity Consolidated Budget

28%28%24,96524,96519,43419,434Total PopulationTotal Population

39%39%14,17314,17310,20410,204StudentsStudents

17%17%10,79210,7929,2309,230Faculty & StaffFaculty & Staff

VarianceVarianceStanfordStanfordMITMITDemographicsDemographics

1 Includes providing telecommunications for Stanford’s hospital2 Does not include Student Help Desk due to no tracking/ticketing system. Approximate increase with students would be +$275K and +5 or 6 FTEs.

1/5/059

Gauging investment and effectivenessGauging investment and effectiveness

-19%-19%$33.92$33.92$41.83$41.83Help Desk Budget / TicketHelp Desk Budget / Ticket

89%89%3,0173,0171,5951,595Tickets / Help Desk FTETickets / Help Desk FTE

89%89%1,342 1,342 11712712Population per HD EmployeePopulation per HD Employee

0%0%2.25 2.25 112.242.24Tickets / School PopulationTickets / School Population

2.3%2.3%4.2%4.2%Help Desk Budget / IT BudgetHelp Desk Budget / IT Budget

4.2%4.2%2.9%2.9%IT Dept Budget / University BudgetIT Dept Budget / University Budget

VarianceVarianceStanfordStanfordMITMIT

1 This ratio’s meaningfulness is affected because it does not include Student Help Desk numbers due to no tracking/ticketing system.

Cost per Ticket

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

$200

Accounts

Backup

Business

Apps

Business

Func

Cluster

Connect

ivity

Course

wareEmail

Hardware

OS Soft

wareOther

Printin

g

Desk Soft

ware

Securit

y/Viru

sWeb

MIT Stanford

Goal: Be cost effective

See supporting data in Appendix 9

1/5/0511

Total Annual Cost by Help Desk Topic

$0

$80,000

$160,000

$240,000

$320,000

$400,000

$480,000

Accounts

Backup

Business

Apps

Business

Func

Cluster

Connect

ivity

Course

wareEmail

Hardware

OS Soft

wareOther

Printin

g

Desk Soft

ware

Securit

y/Viru

sWeb

Annu

al C

ost

MITStanford



1/5/0512

MIT First Contact Helpdesks

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Accts/I

D's/Auth

Backup

Bus App Suppt

Bus. Functi

ons

Cluster

Connect

ivity

Course

wareEmail

Hardware

OS Soft

wareOther

Printin

g

Producti

vity S

W

Securit

y/Viru

sWeb

Case

s & C

ompl

exity

s

4-101-40-1

Estimated Complexity of Case



1/5/0513

Stanford Helpdesks: Tier Where Resolved

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

Accts/I

D's/Auth

Backup

Bus App Suppt

Bus. Functi

ons

Cluster

Connect

ivity

Course

ware Email

Hardware

OS Soft

wareOther

Printin

g

Producti

vity S

W

Securit

y/Viru

sW

eb

Cas

es &

Com

plex

ity

OtherLevel 2Level 1



1/5/0514

Impact: New Business Applications

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

A S O N D J F M A M J J12 Months FY02

Num

ber

of T

roub

le T

icke

ts ITSS Help DeskLevel 1

ITSS Help DeskLevel 2

LegacyApplications

Rollout NewApplications

Total HelpTickets

Some rollout application tickets included in HDLevels 1 & 2.

Kronos/HR People Soft

Jan.

HR Salary Setting

May

Axess Probs. March

Goal: Support rollout of new systems

See supporting data in Appendix 9 (Stanford data only).

1/5/0515

Preliminary data offers initial observationsPreliminary data offers initial observations

Implementation choices affect Help Desk costsImplementation choices affect Help Desk costs–– MITMIT

»» EmailEmail»» Connectivity to desktopConnectivity to desktop»» Security, KerberosSecurity, Kerberos

““Time is money.Time is money.”” Topics are expensive when they Topics are expensive when theyare complex, must escalate, or relate to uniqueare complex, must escalate, or relate to uniqueapplicationsapplications–– Specialists are required more frequently for unique,Specialists are required more frequently for unique,

proprietary issuesproprietary issues

System rollouts create overall spikes and some dipsSystem rollouts create overall spikes and some dipsin specific areasin specific areas

–– StanfordStanford»» Accounts, authenticationsAccounts, authentications»» Business appsBusiness apps

1/5/0516

Initial observationsInitial observations

Student employeesStudent employees»» MIT Help Desk employs more students at a lower overallMIT Help Desk employs more students at a lower overall

budgetbudget»» More FTEs but difficult now to gauge overall effectiveness ofMore FTEs but difficult now to gauge overall effectiveness of

using studentsusing students

Structured tiers:Structured tiers:»» Using structured tiers Using structured tiers maymay support a greater number of cases support a greater number of cases»» Resolving at Tier 1 Resolving at Tier 1 significantlysignificantly reduces costs reduces costs»» You can either You can either ““tier the worktier the work”” through process choices, or can through process choices, or can

““tier the stafftier the staff”” to handle only certain types of work to handle only certain types of work

““MediaMedia”” of case submission of case submission maymay affect costs affect costs»» Web submission Web submission maymay support greater number of cases/FTE support greater number of cases/FTE

1/5/0517

Responsiveness to Phone CallsResponsiveness to Phone Calls

5 min.5 min.4%4%59.559.5HDI IndustryHDI IndustryComparisonsComparisons

20392039415415

(6.9 min)(6.9 min)999913%13%4545MIT-MIT-

All desksAll desksJul 01Jul 01–– Jun 02 Jun 02

403240324.9 min4.9 min252252

(4.2 min)(4.2 min)686817%17%5151StanfordStanford

Tier 1 onlyTier 1 onlyJan-Aug 02Jan-Aug 02

AverageAverage

# of Calls# of CallsMonthlyMonthly

TimeTimebetweenbetween

CallsCalls(for staffer)(for staffer)

AverageAverageCallCall

LengthLength(seconds)(seconds)

TimeTimebeforebeforeCallerCaller

AbandonsAbandons(seconds)(seconds)

AbandonAbandonRateRate

%%

AverageAverageSpeed toSpeed toAnswerAnswer

(seconds)(seconds)

Speed to Answer = Time a call waited before being answered by a person.Abandon rate = % of calls where customer hung up; includes callers that hung up after reaching voice mail.Call Length = Time from when a call is answered to when it is released. Time between Calls = Time between calls that an ACD agent handles. Agent closes out ticket before getting back in queue to receive calls.

Goal: Be responsive

1/5/0518

Customer satisfaction appears comparable acrossCustomer satisfaction appears comparable acrossinstitutions.institutions.

Improvement effortsImprovement effortsdo bear fruit asdo bear fruit asshown in MITshown in MIT’’sstwo annual surveytwo annual surveyresults.results.

MIT Computing Help Desk (All Levels) and Stanford Help Desk (Level 1)"Snapshot" Surveys after Recently Closed Cases

Annualized Average

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

MIT 2001 SU 2002

5 Po

int

Like

rt S

cale

Timeliness ofResponse

Quality ofResolution

Courtesy andProfessionalism

TechnicalCompetence

OverallSatisfaction

MIT Computing Help Desk (All Levels) from IS Annual Customer Satisfaction Surveys

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

2000 2002

Lik

ert

Sca

le

Timeliness of Response

Quality of Resolution

Courtesy and Professionalism

Technical Competence

Overall Satisfaction

Ability to Get Through

Turnaround Time

Goal: Support customers with high quality service


1/5/0519

The vast majority of cases are resolved quickly.The vast majority of cases are resolved quickly.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 10 20 30 40 50

n of Interactions

Day

s to

Clo

se

Help Desk Overall

Goal: Develop effective, mature processes

Case neglected orCustomer unresponsive

Desirable

Time to Close Cases -- Help Desk

61.53%

8.46% 9.23%10.95%4.09% 3.40% 2.35%

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1 3 7 14 21 31 More

Days

Cases

.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

1/5/0520

Individual performance can vary greatly;Individual performance can vary greatly;must consider Hawthorne effectmust consider Hawthorne effect

Goal: Maintain high-performing, competent team

Stanford IT Help Desk (Level 2)

Hours Logged FY02

1086

676

630

623

532

461

414

294

130

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Staff Member F

Staff Member G

Staff Member H (80%)

Staff Member B

Staff Member E (55%)

Staff Member I

Staff Member A

Staff Member C (75%)

Managers D

1/5/0521

More team or employee-related metrics areMore team or employee-related metrics aredesirable but need more high level discussiondesirable but need more high level discussion

Employee satisfaction surveyEmployee satisfaction survey

Customer satisfaction tied to individualCustomer satisfaction tied to individualservice providersservice providers

IndividualIndividual performance metrics performance metrics–– MIT already tracks by teamMIT already tracks by team

–– Stanford tracks by individualStanford tracks by individual

Help Desk CertificationsHelp Desk Certifications–– Behavioral and/or technical competenciesBehavioral and/or technical competencies

Goal: Maintain high-performing, competent team

1/5/0522

Initial performance data also yields someInitial performance data also yields someobservationsobservations

Customer satisfactionCustomer satisfaction»» Appears comparable across both institutionsAppears comparable across both institutions

»» Improvements efforts did increase satisfaction over 2 years (MIT)Improvements efforts did increase satisfaction over 2 years (MIT)

Process effectivenessProcess effectiveness»» Better categorization, identification of the work may help with fasterBetter categorization, identification of the work may help with faster

escalation. Get to the escalation. Get to the ““right placeright place”” faster. faster.

»» Vast majority are resolved quicklyVast majority are resolved quickly

Employee performanceEmployee performance»» Can vary significantly among individualsCan vary significantly among individuals

»» Metrics do affect behavior (Stanford)Metrics do affect behavior (Stanford)

1/5/0523

The data also raise good questionsThe data also raise good questions

ProcessesProcesses–– Which cases should be escalated more quickly?Which cases should be escalated more quickly?–– Should you tier the Should you tier the ““workwork”” or the or the ““organization?organization?””–– How does web-submission affect cost?How does web-submission affect cost?

StaffingStaffing–– Is student employment effective?Is student employment effective?–– What additional training should What additional training should ““tier 1tier 1”” receive? receive?–– How should each institution use employee performance data?How should each institution use employee performance data?

Support intensive systemsSupport intensive systems–– Should support intensive systems be replaced?Should support intensive systems be replaced?–– How can we help with new system design to minimize Help DeskHow can we help with new system design to minimize Help Desk

requirements?requirements?

Investments to improve efficienciesInvestments to improve efficiencies–– Which tools should we acquire to improve performance?Which tools should we acquire to improve performance?

1/5/0524

Quick Wins for ImplementationQuick Wins for Implementation

Quick WinQuick WinIn PlaceIn Place

Reconfigure SpaceReconfigure Space Reconfigure space and move staff to allow for more efficienciesReconfigure space and move staff to allow for more efficiencies

and collaborationand collaboration

Quick WinQuick Win

Quick WinQuick Win

Quick WinQuick Win

Not quickNot quick

Proactively use dataProactively use data Generate & review weekly metric reportsGenerate & review weekly metric reports Generate weekly Generate weekly ““standardsstandards”” for tickets processed or time spent for tickets processed or time spent

and use as part of individual performance managementand use as part of individual performance management

Quick WinQuick WinQuick WinQuick Win

Customer feedbackCustomer feedback Initiate or increase Initiate or increase transaction-basedtransaction-based ““spotspot”” surveys surveys

Quick WinQuick Win

In PlaceIn Place

Quick WinQuick Win

Quick WinQuick Win

In PlaceIn Place

Quick WinQuick Win

In PlaceIn Place

Quick WinQuick Win

Quick WinQuick Win

In PlaceIn Place

Quick WinQuick Win

Quick WinQuick Win

TrackingTracking Track tickets at student-staffed Unix deskTrack tickets at student-staffed Unix desk

Track Track internalinternal hand-offs or hand-offs or ““tiers/escalationstiers/escalations”” explicitly explicitly

Standardize work reporting categoriesStandardize work reporting categories

Track type of media for each caseTrack type of media for each case

Consolidate reporting functions into one ticket systemConsolidate reporting functions into one ticket system

Examine excess ticket counts in specific categoriesExamine excess ticket counts in specific categories


1/5/0525

Next Phase of Help Desk BenchmarkingNext Phase of Help Desk Benchmarking

Next PhaseNext Phase



Long TermLong Term

High Performing TeamHigh Performing Team Solicit employee feedback for process and job improvementSolicit employee feedback for process and job improvement

Track % of HD Certifications and training $ per employeeTrack % of HD Certifications and training $ per employee





In PlaceIn Place

ManagementManagement Create cross-functional ITSS team for Delphi rolloutCreate cross-functional ITSS team for Delphi rollout

Institute regular review of metrics with financeInstitute regular review of metrics with finance

Create Help Desk Create Help Desk ““Standard Standard Oprtng ProcdrsOprtng Procdrs”” & & HandbkHandbk




In PlaceIn Place

Customer feedbackCustomer feedback Collaborate on annual customer surveyCollaborate on annual customer survey

Define process for using customer survey responses Define process for using customer survey responses


Next PhaseNext PhaseNext PhaseNext Phase





Next PhaseNext PhaseNext PhaseNext Phase

In PlaceIn Place


Long TermLong Term

Software or Hardware InvestmentsSoftware or Hardware Investments Scope RemedyScope Remedy changes needed for changes needed for bmarkingbmarking; engage consultant; engage consultant

CasetrackerCasetracker to allow consultant to track to allow consultant to track touch minutestouch minutes per case and per case andescalationsescalations (tiers) both within and outside HD (tiers) both within and outside HD

Knowledge ManagementKnowledge Management system system

Pilot use to help HD staff retrieve standard answersPilot use to help HD staff retrieve standard answers

Evaluate usefulness of client use (self-help)Evaluate usefulness of client use (self-help)

ACD ACD ““call-boardcall-board”” to display calls waiting in queue to display calls waiting in queue

Create Create ““dashboarddashboard”” reports and process for regular reporting reports and process for regular reporting

Self-serve password reset toolsSelf-serve password reset tools


1/5/0526

Cost to Implement MetricsCost to Implement Metrics

$15K$15KSelf Creation of DashboardSelf Creation of Dashboard

$32K$32KCreation of Standard Operating ProceduresCreation of Standard Operating Procedures

$10K $10K$10K $10KJoint customer satisfaction surveyJoint customer satisfaction survey

$ 60K$ 60KSelf-serve password reset toolsSelf-serve password reset tools

$ 15K$ 15KACD ACD ““call-boardcall-board”” to display queued calls to display queued calls

$ 300K $300K$ 300K $300KKnowledge ManagementKnowledge Management system system

Pilot use to help HD staffPilot use to help HD staff

Evaluate use of client self-serveEvaluate use of client self-serve

$ 75K$ 75KCasetrackerCasetracker consultantconsultant

$ 60K$ 60KRemedyRemedy consultant to program changes consultant to program changes

Next 6 monthsNext 6 months

MITMIT StanfordStanfordSoftware or Hardware InvestmentsSoftware or Hardware Investments

1/5/0527

Stanford: Help Desk Dashboard Stanford: Help Desk Dashboard –– MONTHLY MONTHLY

Cases by Media

012345678

J F M A M J J A S O N D

EmailCallsWalk-InSelf-Help

0

1

2

3

4

5

Courtesy TechKnowledge

Overall Satis

TO BE DEVELOPEDCustomer Satisfaction - Spot Ticket Surveys

IT Help Desk

Tech Support

Student

Phone-In Statistics

0

5

10Abandon

Time to Answer

Hold TimeCall Length (Tier 2)

Another MetricActual

Goal

Problems by Cause - Tier 1 -- for Month of XXXXX

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Account IDAuthority

Bus AppCluster

Securty/Virus

Connectvty

Data BackupEmail

OtherHW Print

SW - OS

SW -PersonalWeb

Telecom

Current

Previous

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% P

robl

em R

esol

utio

n

Tier 3Tier 2Tier 1

Level 1 Help Desk # of Tickets Created by Employee - 2002

-200400600800

1,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,0002,2002,4002,6002,8003,0003,2003,400

F M A M J J A S Avg

987654321

1/5/0528

MIT: Help Desk Dashboard MIT: Help Desk Dashboard –– MONTHLY MONTHLY

0

1

2

3

4

5

Courtesy TechKnowledge

Overall Satis

TO BE DEVELOPEDCustomer Satisfaction - Spot Ticket Surveys

IT Help Desk Tech Support Student

Time to Close Cases

61.53%

8.46%9.23%10.95%4.09%3.40%2.35%

0500

1000

1500

2000

25003000

3500

400045005000

1 3 7 14 21 31 More

Days

Cas

es

.00%10.00%20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%60.00%

70.00%

80.00%90.00%100.00%

MIT First Contact Help Desks

Cases By Method

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar-

02

Apr-

02

May-

02

Jun-

02

Jul-02 Aug-

02

Sep-

02Messages(Email, Web)

Internal(Transfers, Referrals)

Interactive(Voice, Char)In-Person(Walk In, Site Visit)

MIT First Contact Helpdesks

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Acco

unts/ID's/

Auth

ority

Back

up

Busin

ess Ap

plica

tion

Supp

ort

Busin

ess Fu

nctio

ns

Clus

ter

Conn

ectiv

ity

Cour

sewar

eEm

ail

Hardw

are

OS S

oftw

are

Other

Printin

g

Prod

uctiv

ity S

oftw

are

Secu

rity/

Viru

sW

eb

Case

s /

Co

mp

lexit

y

MIT First Contact HelpdesksInteractive Communications

(Phone, Chat)

Answered %

Phone Time to Answer (0-60)

Hold Time (0-60)Call Length (simple) (0-600)

Call Length (specialist) (0-600)

Actual

Goal

Notes:1) The MIT ACD currently does not collect hold time.2) Times are in seconds3) MIT currently cannot distinguish specialist fromsimple calls; actual is average

MIT First Contact HelpdesksMessage Communications

(Email, Web Requests)

Answered%

Time to first response (0-600)

Number of exchanges (simple) (0-6)

Time between exchanges (simple) (0-600)

Number of exchanges (specialist) (0-6)

Time between exchanges (specialist)(0-6000)

Actual

Goal

Notes: This is a sample dashboard showing metrics to be delivered on a monthly basis pending some tool improvements.1. The Cases by Complexity graph shows real ticket counts and categorizations. Complexity is currently estimated based on time-to-resolve.2. We do not currently have complete Helpdesk Interactive Communications data such as time to first response. This graph is a placeholder.3. Cases by Method shows additional data. The graph breaks out email and web requests. Ultimately we want to consolidate this data into the categories shown in the graph’s legend.

Specialist (Tier 2)Simple (Tier 1)

Referral (Tier 3)

1/5/0529

Next Steps for MIT/StanfordNext Steps for MIT/StanfordHelp Desk BenchmarkingHelp Desk Benchmarking

JJ JJ AA

Consider inviting others to benchmarkConsider inviting others to benchmark

Implement management, Implement management, oprtns oprtns changeschanges

Implement customer spot surveys; thenImplement customer spot surveys; thenannual customer survey (?)annual customer survey (?)

MM SSJJ FF

Implement Knowledge ManagementImplement Knowledge Managementsystem and ACD call boardsystem and ACD call board

Begin software modificationsBegin software modifications

Track common metrics; re-evaluateTrack common metrics; re-evaluate

Implement selected metrics (dashboard)Implement selected metrics (dashboard)and quick winsand quick wins

AAMMDDMonths:Months:

= On-site visits

Ongoing

Ongoing Annual?

stanford / mit benchmarking it help...

Documents