ARCHIVED - Guidelines for Core KPIs (Key Performance Indicators)
This page has been archived.
Archived Content
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.
Guidelines for Core Key Performance Indicators
Interim Report on
Primary Service Channels
September 2004
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Defining The Channels
3.0 Management Accountability Framework
4.0 Service Standards
5.0 Accountability and Key Performance Measures
6.0 Policy and Programs
7.0 Risk Management
8.0 Key Performance Indicators - Phone Channel
MAF Category: Citizen Focused Service
MAF Category: Stewardship
Metrics for Service Effectiveness
Metrics for Use of Technology
Metrics for Channel Take-up
MAF Category: People
9.0 Key Performance Indicators -In-Person Channel
MAF Category: Citizen Focused Service
MAF Category: Stewardship
Metrics for Service Effectiveness
Metrics for Use of Technology
Metrics for Channel Take-up
MAF Category: People
10.0 Key Performance Indicators - Internet Channel
MAF Category: Citizen Focused Service
MAF Category: Stewardship
Metrics for Service Effectiveness
Metrics for Use of Technology
Metrics for Channel Take-up
MAF Category: People
11.0 Key Performance Indicators - Mail Channel
MAF Category: Citizen Focused Service
MAF Category: Stewardship
Metrics for Service Effectiveness
Metrics for Use of Technology
Metrics for Channel Take-up
MAF Category: People
12.0 Using Service Delivery KPI's in Departmental Reporting
13.0 Contact Information
Appendix A: Terms and Definitions
Appendix B: References
Appendix C: Summary of Core Key Performance Indicators
Executive Summary
The development of key performance indicators (KPIs) for the Government of Canada (GoC) became a priority as Canada's Government Online (GOL) initiative matured from 1998 through 2004. The rapid development of the Internet channel as a means of providing effective public service delivery created an appetite for revolutionary change in all types of service delivery. Prior to GOL, large-scale improvements to service delivery were confined to specific government programs and services. Interdepartmental projects were rare. The advent of the Internet and the preference of Canadians to to access on-line government services has created cutting edge opportunities for change in delivering services to Canadians.
In the past three years, dozens of interdepartmental initiatives have taken hold and have helped to foster citizen-centred service delivery. As more and more business improvement opportunities were conceived, it became clear that the Government of Canada needed clear communication for analytical decision making. Many departments have made significant investments in performance management and made progress towards the disciplined decision-making characteristic of the world's best corporations. Nevertheless, differences in terminology, definitions, usage, data collection, and performance frameworks were quickly identified as limiting the ability to monitor and affect 'enterprise'-level performance.
The genesis of the Core KPI project came from the GoC's Telephony Service Working Group - an interdepartmental collection of GoC call centre managers and executives that came together to share best practices, establish consistent service standards and generally improve the capabilities of GoC call centre operations. In 2003, this working group quickly identified, and provided precise definitions of, common KPIs.
Coincident with this achievement, Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat developed a modernized approach to the management of the public sector organizations and programs called the Management Accountability Framework (MAF). This comprehensive set of tools, standards, and processes provided an over-arching framework for the Core KPI project. The operational nature of KPIs strongly supported the MAF and provided direct information to two of the primary MAF categories - stewardship and citizen-focused service.
In 2003, as the GoC's Internet channel rapidly matured and initial significant transactional capability came online, new interdepartmental working committees were formed to deal with the complexities of multi-service, multi-channel delivery alternatives. Internet gateways and clusters rapidly evolved; this helped organize services in parallel with client segments and life events. This has created opportunities to effect corresponding changes in how GoC services are delivered in-person and by mail. By 2004, there was a clear need to establish common core KPIs and establish a working environment to develop further a common performance language.
The Core KPI project brought together numerous government managers -experts in delivering services to Canadians, visitors and businesses. Managers with operational responsibility for call and mail processing centres, Internet sites, and in-person locations were engaged in several meetings to identify the KPIs that provide maximum management value.
The result of these meetings was a small set of channel-specific core KPIs that reflect specific MAF themes. These KPIs will be required for a variety of reporting requirements, Treasury Board submissions, and ongoing reviews. Additional operational KPIs were identified that are recommended by Treasury Board (but not required) as effective indicators that provide strong operational benefits to service delivery organizations.
The Core KPI project is not complete. There is an ongoing requirement for implementation, improvement, and additions as the GoC service delivery strategy evolves. Perhaps the most important and lasting benefit is the networking of the best performance management people in the GoC. These experts continue to develop new techniques and identify improvements to ensure that Canada remains one of the world leaders in public sector service delivery. And that position clearly improves our competitive position in the twenty-first century.
Record of Changes
|
Version |
Date |
Summary of Changes |
|
V 0.9 |
August 30, 2004 |
First draft for formal review |
|
V 1.0 |
Sept. 30, 2004 |
Minor edits |
Detailed Description of Changes from Previous Version
Acknowledgements
|
Project Authority: |
Victor Abele |
|
Project Analyst: |
Phillip Massolin |
|
Author: |
Dan Scharf |
|
Contributors: |
Daryl Sommers |
|
Web Content: |
Morris Miller |
1.0 Introduction
Citizens are faced with a greater choice of channels than ever before to access government services (in-person, phone, internet and mail) , creating corresponding challenges for organizations to manage service delivery across all channels.
Key Performance Indicators (KPI) are increasingly used by the private and public sectors to measure progress towards organizational goals using a defined set of quantifiable measures. For the GoC, KPIs are becoming an essential part of achieving Management Accountability Framework (MAF) compliance.
Once approved, the KPI framework will constitute a key element of departments' annual monitoring. You can navigate KPIs by:
- Channel - each channel includes standard metrics (KPIs) for managing performance, or
- Management Accountability Framework category
A series of government-wide workshops identified the requirement for a consistent approach to measure service delivery performance across the GoC. Workshop resultscan be assessed to help you create baseline frameworks for channel measurement and provide input into the process.
2.0 Defining The Channels
Phone Service is the preferred service channel for most Canadians. Primary modes of interaction within this channel are:
- Interactive Voice Response (IVR) to provide self-service, routing, and broadcast services;
- Agent-based services - the most highly valued service channel for citizens today.
Internet Service: most surveys indicate this as preferred channel of the future. Modes of interaction include:
- Self-service via online transactions, search and website navigation strategies
- E-mail - which provides delayed support both automated and agent authored
- Online chat technologies which provides 'real time' agent assisted Internet service delivery
Mail: primary indicators indicate that this channel - the "paper channel" - is decreasing in popularity. Surveys in the past few years indicate that citizens will increase the use of more timely and interactive channels. Mail is sent using three methods (analogous to the modes of interaction in the other channels):
- Fax - instant transmission via facsimile devices over phone or broadband networks;
- Courier - expedited delivery via priority parcel carriers (within 48 hours);
- Regular Mail- via regular postal services (3 to 10 days).
In-Person Service: Canada's extensive network of local offices provides a significant proportion of all government service delivery using primarily queued and appointment based service models. Some In-Person points of service also offer assisted Internet and telephone services through kiosks, publicly available computers, and public phones. There are four services modes for the In-Person Service channel:
- Queued - a managed, multi-agent counter office which often has a reception counter to 'triage' visitors to the correct counter and answer simple questions;
- Scheduled - significant volumes of in-person services are provided on a pre-scheduled 'one-on-one' basis;
- Outreach - several service delivery organizations schedule seminars and training sessions in communities throughout Canada;
- Retail - some organizations provide 'storefront' operations where visitors can browse publications and utilize computers for self-service, Service staff are available to help and can either approach the visitor directly 'on the floor' or respond to visitors questions at service counters.
Service channels and modes of interaction are impacted by accessibility standards which maximize the availability of channels to people with disabilities. For example, the use of TTY technology within the Phone Channel provides access to hearing impaired individuals. In the In Person channel, the use of ramps, lower counters, and powered doors facilitate access for people who use wheelchairs. The Internet Channel uses W3C accessibility standards to ensure that government websites are accessible using assisting technologies such as screen readers, font magnifiers, and speech recognition.
Several GOC organizations are using multi-channel service strategies to achieve higher service value with economic investments. For example, Service Canada uses publicly available computers within its service outlets to provide self-service and, as required, assisted Internet support to visitors. Several departments are experimenting with dedicated, specially trained call-centre agents to support Internet site visitors through toll-free direct assistance lines.
KPI's listed in this document are not specifically intended to measure the important service delivery issues of accessibility to people with disabilities and integrated multi-channel implementation characteristics.
3.0 Management Accountability Framework
The Government of Canada has instituted a consistent management framework for its programs and services. Comprehensive information on the Management Accountability Framework (MAF) can be found at Treasury Board's website (reference: /maf-crg/index-eng.asp). MAF provides deputy heads and all public service managers with a list of management expectations that reflect the different elements of current management responsibilities. Key Performance Indicators for Service Delivery are grouped within the MAF categories (Policy and Programs, People, Citizen-Focused Service, Risk Management, Stewardship, Accountability) as shown in the following diagram.
The majority of service delivery indicators relate to the operational nature of the Stewardship category. Additional indicators measure progress to objectives under the Citizen-Focused Service Category and People. The Accountability category provides checklists and processes for establishing effective service level agreements. Specific assessment tools are used for the Policy and Programs and Risk Management categories.
4.0 Service Standards
The Service Improvement Initiative defines specific guidelines for all departments and agencies to establish and publish services standards for citizens, international visitors, and businesses using GOC services and programs.
The Citizen First Survey provides specific information on client service expectations through a formal comprehensive survey. Trends over the past 5 years indicate shifts in these expectations that provide government service delivery managers with effective direction to prioritize service improvement initiatives.
The overarching goal is to establish a 10% increase in client satisfaction by 2005. Departments are required to set standards and measure progress to this goal using primary criteria such as:
|
Timeliness |
- the time required to receive a service or product |
|
Access |
- how accessible was the service or ordering process to the client? |
|
Outcome |
- did the client receive what was needed? |
|
Satisfaction |
- did the client receive what was needed? |
Common high-level service standards include:
|
Average speed to answer |
- 5 minutes |
|
Expected answer by e-mail |
- Next business day |
|
Queue time for in-person services |
- 15 minutes |
5.0 Accountability and Key Performance Measures
As specified in MAF, service delivery channels must employ clear accountability frameworks. Most frequently, departments and agencies use a Service Level Agreement (SLA) both for internally resourced services and for third party and partnership teams. The following table presents a minimum set of components which must be included in a Government of Canada SLA which provides the foundation for service delivery to citizens, visitors and businesses.
Component |
Description |
|
Service Level Agreement Name |
The name of the SLA, particularly useful when a single SLA is used across multiple service offerings. |
|
Service Description |
The details of the service the government intends to provide and the benefits the users can expect to receive |
|
Service Criticality Level |
Normally identified in a Service Catalogue based on already defined metrics. This level of criticality should be based primarily on the service user's requirements. |
|
Service Channels |
Identifies which channels this service is available through e.g. telephone, mail, in-person, Internet, and appropriate contact information for the channels. |
|
Service Primary Service Provider |
The department or agency which is primarily responsible for the service. |
|
Service Partner Providers |
Other partner-departments that provide support to a Primary Service Provider for a service. e.g. GTIS provides the Internet Server to the Health Canada |
|
Pledge |
Provides the details of the quality of the service a client can expect. This is frequently time based e.g. Passports will be processed in X number of days. |
|
Delivery Targets |
Delivery targets describe the key aspects of the service provided, such as access, timeliness and accuracy. |
|
Dates |
The effective start and end dates of the agreement. A review date must also be identified so that performance measurements can be made and the SLA can be adjusted or action can be taken to improve the performance of an SLA. |
|
Costs |
Identifies a cost for service (even when user fees are not required) to ensure that users understand and form realistic expectations about services offered by the Federal Government |
|
Complaint and Redress |
Provides the service user with mechanisms to resolve their
Concerns, for example when the SLA has not been met. |
|
Service Hours |
Service availability e.g. 24x7. Service hours should provide maximum cost-effective access for the service user. Public holidays must be identified as well as the hours for each channel. |
|
Throughput |
Describes the anticipated volumes and timing for activities within a specific service e.g. UI Applications Sep-May=100,000, Jun-Aug=50,000. This is important so that any performance issues, which have been caused by excessive throughput outside the terms of the SLA, can be identified. |
|
Change Management |
Identifies the policies surrounding any changes that will affect the service provided to the user. For example, if UIC benefits are going to be mailed out every 2nd month instead of every month, how will the change be managed to ensure that expectations are being met. |
|
Security and Privacy |
Identifies inter-departmental policies on the sharing of user information for various services. Organizations must comply with PIPEDA and Treasury Board Policies. |
|
Service reporting and reviewing |
Specifies the content, frequency and distribution of service reports and the frequency of service review meetings. |
|
Performance Incentives/Penalties |
This section identifies any agreement regarding financial incentives or penalties based upon performance against service levels. Penalty clauses can create a barrier to partnership if unfairly invoked on a technicality and can also make service providers and partners unwilling to admit mistakes for fear of the penalties being imposed. |
6.0 Policy and Programs
The Policy and Programs in this MAF context refers to relevant lines of activity within Departments and Agencies. Departmental Reports are the primary reporting tool used to document the overall policy effectiveness of specific programs. Readers should consult the MAF, relevant Treasury Board Policies as well as the Program Activity Architecture (P.A.A.) for information and guidance in this category.
In the Fall / Winter of 2004/05, we will be consulting with the service community with a view to developing a more comprehensive service policy. This work will allow us to formalize the approach to KPIs which is currently in draft format.
7.0 Risk Management
The Risk Management category of MAF specifies a checklist for departmental management to establish comprehensive and transparent identification of risks, tolerances, mitigation strategies, and effective communication approaches. For detailed information, readers should refer to MAF.
8.0 Key Performance Indicators - Phone Channel
MAF Category: Citizen Focused Service
Metrics for Access
|
KPI: |
Call Access |
|
Description: |
Percentage of calls presented that get into the ACD. |
|
Objective: |
Measures overall service capacity from ACD to Agent. |
|
Definition: |
(Calls Answered +Calls Abandoned) divided by Calls Presented. Busy signals generated by switch divided by total calls received in reporting period. |
|
Derivation: |
ACD. |
|
Suggested benchmark / Range: |
40% to 60% |
|
Status: |
Proposed as a Core KPI |
|
KPI: |
Caller Access |
|
Description: |
Percentage of unique callers who attempt and successfully access service. |
|
Objective: |
Basic volume measure. Determines service level by counting "unserviced" callers. Removes "repeat callers" from accessibility measure. |
|
Definition: |
Total unique phone numbers completed divided by Total Unique Phone Numbers attempted. |
|
Suggested benchmark / Range: |
80% to 85% |
|
Status: |
Proposed as a Core KPI |
|
KPI: |
Abandoned Calls |
|
Description: |
Percentage of calls which are abandoned while in queue due to prolonged delay waiting for service, typically for a live agent. |
|
Objective: |
Key Measure for overall service level. |
|
Definition: |
Number of calls abandoned within agent-queue + IVR abandons before 'success markers' divided by total calls answered + total calls abandoned. |
|
Derivation: |
ACD. |
|
Suggested benchmark / Range: |
10% to 15% |
|
Status: |
Proposed as a Core KPI |
Metrics for Delay
|
KPI: |
Average Speed to Answer (ASA) |
|
Description: |
The average delay, while in queue before connecting to an agent, expressed in seconds. |
|
Objective: |
Primary Indicator of caller satisfaction. |
|
Definition: |
The total number of seconds from ACD queuing of call to agent acceptance / total agent calls. |
|
Derivation: |
Measured by ACD |
|
Status: |
Proposed as a Core KPI |
|
KPI: |
Service Level |
|
Description: |
Percentage of calls that reach an agent or are abandoned within a specified time threshold. |
|
Objective: |
This measure is required in order to set and publish telephone service standards. |
|
Definition: |
Calls answered within Threshold + Calls Abandoned within Threshold / (Total Calls Answered + Total Calls Abandoned). |
|
Derivation: |
Measured by ACD |
|
Status: |
Proposed and required for phone service management |
Metrics for Quality
|
KPI: |
Answer Accuracy |
|
Description: |
Consistency of IVR and agent answers. |
|
Objective: |
To ensure program integrity. |
|
Definition: |
Local quality scorecard assessed by call monitoring and / or mystery shopper approaches. |
|
Derivation: |
# of calls answered in IVR terminated at 'success' markers +# of agent calls resulting in success status times accuracy evaluation ratio |
|
Status: |
Proposed as a Core KPI |
|
KPI: |
Professionalism |
|
Description: |
Encompasses a range of soft-skills that govern the approach to delivering accurate information and reliable services. |
|
Objective: |
Identifies and reinforces effective communication. |
|
Definition: |
Best measured through the use of a mystery shopper program that uses specific planned calls placed to the call centre by a measurement organization. Can also be measured by exit surveys performed immediately after call completion. |
|
Status: |
Recommended as an operational measure. |
Metrics for Client Satisfaction
|
KPI: |
Service Complaints |
|
Description: |
Application of Common Measurement Tool (CMT) to assess and benchmark client satisfaction |
|
Objective: |
Primary indicator of client perception of service quality, measured repeatedly, trends provide strong evidence of service improvement levels |
|
Derivation: |
The multi-channel survey tool will be used (at a minimum) to determine the core measures relevant to the telephone channel. |
|
Status: |
Proposed as a Core KPI |
|
KPI: |
Client Satisfaction Level |
|
Description: |
Count and categorization of complaints received through all channels concerning the Phone channel. |
|
Objective: |
Primary indicator of service quality particularly when measured over time. |
|
Derivation: |
Counted by incident tracking system. Complaints received through other channels must be added to total. |
|
Status: |
Recommended as a Core KPI but not currently feasible as most GoC organizations do not integrate service feedback information. |
Key Performance Indicators - Phone Channel continued
MAF Category Stewardship
Metrics for Agent Utilization
|
KPI: |
Cost per Call |
|
Description: |
The total operational cost of the call centre over the reporting period divided by total calls handled during the reporting period. |
|
Objective: |
Provides high level indication and trend of overall service performance. |
|
Definition: |
will require further working group consultation |
|
Status: |
Recommended as Core KPI |
|
KPI: |
Agent Capacity |
|
Description: |
The anticipated number of hours of agent time available for telephone service for each full-time equivalent (FTE). |
|
Objective: |
Ensures that agent resources are dedicated to required functions |
|
Status: |
Recommended as an operational measure |
|
KPI: |
Resource Allocation |
|
Description: |
A management indicator assessing allocated FTE's to service delivery. |
|
Objective: |
Measures effective use of channel resources. |
|
Definition: |
Locally defined |
|
Status: |
Recommended as an operational measure |
|
KPI: |
Agent Adherence |
|
Description: |
An assessment of telephone agent adherence to schedule and making oneself available during anticipated service periods. |
|
Objective: |
Contributes to resourcing effectiveness |
|
Definition: |
Calculated as total agent login time divided by scheduled work time |
|
Status: |
Recommended as an operational measure |
|
KPI: |
Agent Occupancy |
|
Description: |
The percentage of agent time spent in direct service including "talk and wrap up time". |
|
Objective: |
Ensures accurate resourcing levels to achieve target service levels. |
|
Definition: |
(Talk time + after call wrap up time) divided by total agent log in time over measured period. |
|
Suggested benchmark / Range: |
85% |
|
Status: |
Recommended as an operational measure |
Metrics for Service Effectiveness
|
KPI: |
First Call Resolution |
|
Description: |
The degree to which the client needs are met without further referral or call-back within a designated time interval. |
|
Objective: |
Minimize cost and maximize client satisfaction. |
|
Definition: |
number of single calls by unique phone number within 48 hour period not abandoned |
|
Status: |
recommended as Core KPI |
|
KPI: |
Accurate Referral |
|
Description: |
A redirect to the correct service for resolution of client need (may be to a higher service tier or to a separate organization/jurisdiction providing the service). |
|
Objective: |
Measures key caller criteria of more than 2 transfers. |
|
Definition: |
will require further working group participation |
|
Status: |
Not recommended. Not technically feasible at this time. |
Metrics for Use of Technology
|
KPI: |
Call Avoidance |
|
Description: |
A call that quickly exits the system after an introductory message or bulletin that provides a desired answer for a substantial portion of the calling population, e.g. related to an immediate but temporary service outage. |
|
Objective: |
Measures utility of IVR/bulletins to answer high-volume inquiries. |
|
Definition: |
Calls terminated at specific IVR marker after bulletin |
|
Status: |
Proposed as Core KPI |
|
KPI: |
Calls Answered by IVR Successfully |
|
Description: |
A call that terminates in IVR tree after success marker. |
|
Objective: |
Measures utility of IVR response tree to provide self-service answer; an important indicator of IVR utility; secondary indicator of client satisfaction. |
|
Definition: |
Calls terminated at all IVR 'success' markers. |
|
Status: |
Proposed as Core KPI |
Metrics for Channel Take-up
|
KPI: |
Calls |
|
Description: |
Total calls received |
|
Objective: |
Measures overall service demand |
|
Definition: |
Number of calls received at switch. Note that this will include 'repeat callers' who are refused at the switch. |
|
Status: |
Proposed as Core KPI |
|
KPI: |
Callers |
|
Description: |
Unique Callers |
|
Objective: |
Measures service demand more accurately. |
|
Definition: |
Unique phone numbers dialing the service |
|
Status: |
Proposed as Core KPI |
Key Performance Indicators - Phone Channel continued
MAF Category: People
At publishing time, KPIs for the MAF People category had not yet been proposed to the working group for review. Some examples of KPIs that might be suitable for this MAF category include:
Total Months - Staff on Strength, Average Months on Strength per Agent: A measure of the total experience level of the agents within the call centre. Monitoring this over time provides a measure of the impact of staff turnover.
Staff Turnover Ratio: A measure of the 'churn' rate within the Agent team. Provides a secondary indicator of Call Centre health and it often correlates to overall customer satisfaction levels.
Agent Coaching Ratio: Number of hours of 1 on 1 coaching time/agent. Helps measure the utilization of Call Centre supervisor time as well as the investment in agent skill improvement.
Training Days/Agent: Total training days delivered during the measurement period divided by the number of agents. Training is required for program/service delivery, for technology, and for the development of skills related to professionalism and customer interaction.
Further discussion with departments and agencies will be conducted to identify effective KPIs under this MAF category.
9.0 Key Performance Indicators - In-Person Channel
MAF Category: Citizen Focused Service
Metrics for Access
|
KPI: |
Visitor Access |
|
Description: |
Count of visitors who either a ) are serviced at agent stations or b) obtain
self-service through in-location computers |
|
Objective: |
Basic volume measure. |
|
Definition: |
Total visitors entering facility over measurement period. |
|
Suggested benchmark / Range: |
TBD |
|
Status: |
Proposed as Core KPI. Tracked by all operations. |
|
KPI: |
Visitors Serviced |
|
Description: |
Ratio of visitors receiving agent service to total visitors. Provides indication of utilization of self-service capabilities and overall operational capacity. |
|
Definition: |
Total agent-visitor services divided by total visits |
|
Status: |
Recommended as an operational measure. |
Metrics for Delay
|
KPI: |
Average Wait Time (AWT) |
|
Description: |
The average delay from time of entering facility to introduction at agent station. |
|
Objective: |
Primary Indicator of visitor satisfaction. |
|
Definition: |
The total number of minutes from pulling of service ticket to service. |
|
Derivation: |
Measured by service management system |
|
Status: |
Recommended as an operational KPI. Measured by all Queued service operations. Not trackable within 'retail' service model. |
|
KPI: |
Service Level |
|
Description: |
Percentage of visitors that reach an agent within target wait time. |
|
Objective: |
This measure is required in order to set and publish in-person service standards. |
|
Definition: |
Visitors served within threshold/Total Visitors Serviced |
|
Derivation: |
Measured by service ticketing system |
|
Status: |
Recommended as an operational KPI. Measured by all Queued service models. Not relevant to "retail" service model. |
Metrics for Quality
|
KPI: |
Answer Accuracy |
|
Description: |
Reliability of agent answers. |
|
Objective: |
To ensure program integrity. |
|
Definition: |
Local quality scorecard assessed by supervisor monitoring and / or mystery shopper approaches and/or exit surveys |
|
Derivation: |
# of visitors answered successfully by agents |
|
Status: |
Under review. May be impractical in several service models. |
|
KPI: |
Professionalism |
|
Description: |
Identifies and reinforces effective communication. |
|
Objective: |
To ensure program integrity. |
|
Definition: |
Best measured through the use of a mystery shopper program that uses specific planned visits to the service centre by a measurement organization. Can also be measured by exit surveys either conducted by staff or at self-service computers. |
|
Status: |
Under review. May be impractical in several service models. |
|
KPI: |
Transaction duration variability |
|
Description: |
For operations providing specific transaction services, analysis of variance of transaction duration correlates strongly to application accuracy. |
|
Objective: |
Assess process consistency across agents. |
|
Status: |
Proposed to working team. Applicable only to some operations. Possible as a recommended operational KPI. |
|
KPI: |
Critical Error Rate |
|
Description: |
Some operations monitor application/transaction errors (typically omission of required information) requiring additional interactions with clients. |
|
Objective: |
Assessment of pre-visit instructions to clients and/or reception desk 'triage' procedures. |
|
Status: |
Proposed as an operational measure. Applicability to be reviewed. |
Metrics for Client Satisfaction
|
KPI: |
Client Satisfaction Level |
|
Description: |
Application of Common Measurement Tool (CMT) to assess and benchmark client satisfaction |
|
Objective: |
Primary indicator of client perception of service quality, measured repeatedly, trends provide strong evidence of service improvement levels |
|
Derivation: |
The multi-channel survey tool will be used (at a minimum) to establish the "CSat" level for in-person services. |
|
Status: |
Recommended as core KPI. |
|
KPI: |
Service Complaints |
|
Description: |
Count and categorization of complaints received through all channels concerning the In-Person channel. |
|
Objective: |
Primary indicator of service quality particularly when measured over time. |
|
Definition: |
Total service complaints received during reporting period divided by total number of calls. |
|
Derivation: |
Counted by incident tracking system. Complaints received through other channels must be added to total. |
|
Status: |
Recommended as core KPI. Caveat: Members noted that current systems do not currently support the collection and categorization of service complaints that are received through a wide variety of channels (e.g. Minister's correspondence, general e-mails, complaints at end of successful service phone call) |
Key Performance Indicators - In-Person Channel continued
MAF Category: Stewardship
Metrics for Agent Utilization
|
KPI: |
Cost per Contact |
|
Description: |
Total labour costs divided by total service requests. |
|
Objective: |
Provides a snapshot of current operational efficiency specifically related to agent/manpower. |
|
Definition: |
TBD |
|
Status: |
Recommended as Core KPI. Definition of labour cost to be determined. |
|
KPI: |
Agent Capacity |
|
Description: |
The anticipated number of hours of agent time available for counter service for each agent. |
|
Objective: |
Ensures that agent resources are dedicated to required service functions |
|
Status: |
Recommended as operational KPI for queued service models. |
|
KPI: |
Resource Allocation |
|
Description: |
A management indicator assessing allocated agent positions to service delivery. |
|
Objective: |
Measures effective use of channel resources. |
|
Status: |
Recommended as operational KPI for queued service models. |
|
KPI: |
Agent Adherence |
|
Description: |
An assessment of service agent adherence to schedule and making oneself available during anticipated service periods. |
|
Objective: |
Contributes to resourcing effectiveness |
|
Definition: |
Calculated as total agent login time divided by scheduled work time |
|
Status: |
Recommended as operational KPI for queued service models. |
|
KPI: |
Agent Occupancy |
|
Description: |
The percentage of agent time spent in direct service including "talk and wrap up time". |
|
Objective: |
Ensures accurate resourcing levels to achieve target service levels. |
|
Definition: |
(Talk time + after visit wrap up time) divided by total agent log in time over measured period. |
|
Suggested benchmark / Range: |
TBD |
|
Status: |
Recommended as operational KPI for queued service models. |
Metrics for Service Effectiveness
Working group is asked to contribute suggestions for KPIs in this theme.
|
KPI: |
Turn Around Time |
|
Description: |
The average time to transaction complete (i.e. receipt by client) expressed as a percentage of target time. |
|
Objective: |
Measures the response time to the client - primary indicator of customer satisfaction. |
|
Definition: |
|
|
Status: |
Under review. |
Metrics for Use of Technology
|
KPI: |
Self-Service Ratio |
|
Description: |
A visitor to the service office that accesses computers |
|
Objective: |
Measures utility computer facilities within service office. |
|
Definition: |
Count of number of computer accesses divided by total visitors during measurement period. |
|
Status: |
Proposed as a Core KPI. |
Metrics for Channel Take-up
|
KPI: |
Visitors |
|
Description: |
Total visitors entering the office. |
|
Objective: |
Measures overall service demand |
|
Definition: |
See Access measure. |
|
Status: |
Proposed as a Core KPI. |
Key Performance Indicators - In-Person Channel continued
MAF Category: People
Total Months - Staff on Strength, Average Months on Strength per Agent: A measure of the total experience level of the agents/staff within the service centre. Monitoring this over time provides a measure of the impact of staff turnover.
Staff Turnover Ratio: A measure of the 'churn' rate within the Agent team. Provides a secondary indicator of service centre health and it often correlates to overall customer satisfaction levels.
Agent Coaching Ratio: Number of hours of 1 on 1 coaching time/agent. Helps measure the utilization of service centre supervisor time as well as the investment in agent skill improvement.
Training Days/Agent: Total training days delivered during the measurement period divided by the number of agents. Training is required for program/service delivery, for technology, and for the development of skills related to professionalism and customer interaction.
Further discussion with departments and agencies will be conducted to identify effective KPIs under this MAF category.
10.0 Key Performance Indicators - Internet Channel
The Canadian Gateways team has published a definitive report on Internet Measurement identifying the suitability and meaning of specific web measures (for example, hits versus visits). Readers are asked to review this document (see Appendix B).
MAF Category: Citizen Focused Service
Metrics for Access
In the Internet Channel, the access theme includes measures concerning the availability of the site to potential site visitors.; There are two primary components to site availability:
- How easily can site visitors locate the site through search engines, links from other sites or via publication of the URL through other channels such as the phone and mail? and
- Is the site available for site visitors once it has been located?
Other qualitative characteristics contributing to access include compliance with W3C Accessibility Standards to ensure the site is fully inclusive and available to persons with disabilities.
|
KPI: |
Search Engine Ranking |
|
Description: |
Relevance ranking weighted from distribution of site visitors who entered the site through commercial search engines. Metric assumes that a high search engine rank provides maximum accessibility to those visitors who access the site via search. |
|
Objective: |
Measures overall site access through search engines. |
|
Definition: |
Sum of (relevance ranking multiplied by search engine referring count) divided by total search engine referrals |
|
Derivation: |
Relevance rank from top five referring search engines using visitor representative sample of search terms |
|
Suggested benchmark / Range: |
|
|
Status: |
Proposed as a Core KPI |
|
KPI: |
Direct Access Ratio |
|
Description: |
Percentage of visits which access the site directly via same or known URL to total visitors.This metric assumes that visits accessing the site directly are either typing or pasting a URL in from another source (e.g. a brochure) or have bookmarked the site as a result of repeated visits. |
|
Objective: |
Assessment of site 'memory' through known URL or bookmarking; |
|
Definition: |
Visits arriving at any page in site who do not have a referring URL associated with the visit. |
|
Derivation: |
Web traffic statistics counting visits arriving at site without referring URL. |
|
Status: |
Proposed as a Core KPI |
|
KPI: |
Server Availability Percentage |
|
Description: |
Total available server hours over total planned server hours during reporting period. |
|
Objective: |
Indicative of overall Internet service capacity |
|
Definition: |
sum of total available server hours less scheduled maintenance hours divided by total planned server hours |
|
Derivation: |
Server/Operating System Logs |
|
Status: |
Proposed as a Core KPI |
|
KPI: |
Referral percentage |
|
Description: |
Percentage of total visits arriving at the site from planned referral sites. This KPI can be further broken down into specific sites: e.g. GoC Gateways, other GoC sites, other jurisdictions etc. |
|
Objective: |
Measures another access route to the site and can be used to adjust access strategies. |
|
Definition: |
Total visits arriving from specified websites divided by total visits. |
|
Status: |
Proposed as Core KPI |
|
KPI: |
Conversion Rate |
|
Description: |
Rate at which visitors initiate transactions and reach the 'submit' page. |
|
Objective: |
Key Measure of overall service level and visitor satisfaction |
|
Definition: |
Total visits reaching "submit" pages divided by total visits viewing transaction start pages. |
|
Derivation: |
web monitoring package |
|
Suggested benchmark / Range: |
|
|
Status: |
Proposed as Core KPI |
|
KPI: |
Abandonment Rate |
|
Description: |
Rate at which visitors initiate transactions but do not reach the 'submit' page PLUS visitors exiting site from non-content pages |
|
Objective: |
Key Measure for overall service level. |
|
Definition: |
Visits with unsatisfactory exit pages divided by total visits |
|
Derivation: |
web traffic statistics |
|
Suggested benchmark / Range: |
|
|
Status: |
Proposed as Operational Measure |
Metrics for Delay
|
KPI: |
Average Visit Duration |
|
Description: |
The average duration of a visit. This metric can provide some indication of visitor need. However as more and more transactions are put online, statistics for visit duration may need to be separated according to type of visit (e.g. transactional, browse, search) |
|
Objective: |
Assessment of site "stickiness" - overall relevance of site content and transactions to visitors' requirements. |
|
Definition: |
Total elapsed seconds from site entry at any page to site exit for all visits divided by number of visits |
|
Derivation: |
Measured by web traffic software. |
|
Status: |
Recommended as an operational measure. |
Metrics for Quality
|
KPI: |
Site Error Messages |
|
Description: |
Capture of all computer identified error conditions. Such as page not found message, invalid links, transaction aborts etc. |
|
Objective: |
Improves overall site quality and response. |
|
Definition: |
Total 'error' page views divided by total visits |
|
Derivation: |
Web activity tracking |
|
Status: |
Recommended as Core KPI |
|
KPI: |
Internet Channel Feedback |
|
Description: |
Total criticisms, complaints and compliments categorized into effective topics, received through all sources. It is recognized by working group that this is difficult to track today. However, it is recognized as high value. |
|
Objective: |
Contributes to program integrity. |
|
Definition: |
Count of complaints by topic over reporting period. |
|
Derivation: |
E-Mail, Phone Incident Tracking System, Ministerial Correspondence system |
|
Status: |
Recommended as an operational measure but not currently used within most departments. |
|
KPI: |
Professionalism |
|
Description: |
Encompasses a range of soft skills that govern the approach to delivering accurate information and reliable services. |
|
Objective: |
Identifies and reinforces effective web design and web authoring skills. |
|
Definition: |
Best measured through the use of focus groups and independent testing organizations. Some input may be available from Media Metrics. Quality of e-mail responses where implemented can be verified by Email Response Management System (# of QA corrections, etc). |
|
Status: |
Proposed as Core KPI but must be further developed by working group. |
Metrics for Client Satisfaction
|
KPI: |
Client Satisfaction Level |
|
Description: |
Application of Common Measurement Tool (CMT) to assess and benchmark client satisfaction |
|
Objective: |
Primary indicator of client perception of service quality, measured repeatedly, trends provide strong evidence of service improvement levels |
|
Derivation: |
The multi-channel survey tool will be used (at a minimum) to determine the core measures relevant to the Internet channel. As well, period exit surveys should be conducted upon site exit. Timeliness of speed of e-mail response can also be measured. |
|
Status: |
Proposed as Core KPI |
Key Performance Indicators - Internet Channel continued
MAF Category: Stewardship
|
KPI: |
Cost per Visit, Cost per Visitor |
|
Description: |
The total operational cost of the site over the reporting period divided by total visits/visitors handled during the reporting period. |
|
Objective: |
Provides high level indication and trend of overall service performance. |
|
Definition: |
will require further working group consultation |
|
Status: |
Recommended as Core KPI |
Metrics for Agent Utilization
The following four measures can be tracked for agent-assisted calls concerning the Internet channel and for all messages/e-mails submitted through the Internet site. All are recommended as Operational Measures.
|
KPI: |
Agent Capacity |
|
Description: |
The anticipated number of hours of agent time available for service for each full-time equivalent (FTE). |
|
Objective: |
Ensures that agent resources are dedicated to required functions |
|
KPI: |
Resource Allocation |
|
Description: |
A management indicator assessing allocated FTE's to service delivery. |
|
Objective: |
Measures effective use of channel resources. |
|
Definition: |
Locally defined |
|
KPI: |
Agent Adherence |
|
Description: |
An assessment of telephone agent adherence to schedule and making oneself available during anticipated service periods. |
|
Objective: |
Contributes to resourcing effectiveness |
|
Definition: |
Calculated as total agent login time divided by scheduled work time |
|
KPI: |
Agent Occupancy |
|
Description: |
The percentage of agent time spent in direct service including "talk and wrap up time". |
|
Objective: |
Ensures accurate resourcing levels to achieve target service levels. |
|
Definition: |
Calculated as total agent login time divided by scheduled work time |
|
Suggested benchmark / Range: |
85% |
Metrics for Service Effectiveness
|
KPI: |
First Visit Resolution |
|
Description: |
Unique visitors over x-day period who exited the site from 'success' content pages |
|
Objective: |
Minimize cost and maximize client satisfaction. |
|
Definition: |
number of single unique visits within x-day period who exited the site from specific 'success' (i.e. answer found) pages |
Metrics for Use of Technology
As the Internet Channel is used to provide self-service through Technology, this theme is not applicable within the channel.
Metrics for Channel Take-up
Web channel take up data is used in comparison with other channels to determine the impact of web site changes.
|
KPI: |
Visits |
|
Description: |
Total site visits accepted |
|
Objective: |
Measures overall service demand |
|
Definition: |
Number of visit sessions initiated by web servers. |
|
Status: |
Recommended as Core KPI |
|
KPI: |
Visitors |
|
Description: |
Unique Visitors |
|
Objective: |
Measures service demand accurately. |
|
Definition: |
Unique visitors counted either through registration/login processes or via cookies. |
|
Status: |
Proposed as Core KPI |
Key Performance Indicators - Internet Channel continued
MAF Category: People
At publishing time, KPIs for the MAF People category had not yet been proposed to the working group for review. Some examples of KPIs that might be suitable for this MAF category include:
Total Months - Staff on Strength, Average Months on Strength per Agent: A measure of the total experience level of the agents within the call centre. Monitoring this over time provides a measure of the impact of staff turnover.
Staff Turnover Ratio: A measure of the 'churn' rate within the Agent team. Provides a secondary indicator of Call Centre health and it often correlates to overall customer satisfaction levels.
Agent Coaching Ratio: Number of hours of 1 on 1 coaching time/agent. Helps measure the utilization of Call Centre supervisor time as well as the investment in agent skill improvement.
Training Days/Agent: Total training days delivered during the measurement period divided by the number of agents. Training is required for program/service delivery, for technology, and for the development of skills related to professionalism and customer interaction.
Further discussion with departments and agencies will be conducted to identify effective KPIs under this MAF category.
11.0 Key Performance Indicators - Mail Channel
MAF Category: Citizen Focused Service
Metrics for Access
|
KPI: |
Applications/Pieces Opened |
|
Description: |
Count of new envelopes opened during reporting period. |
|
Objective: |
Basic volume measure. |
|
Definition: |
Total envelopes opened less inappropriate mail (junk mail, wrongly-addressed etc) |
|
Suggested benchmark / Range: |
|
|
Status: |
Proposed as Core KPI. |
|
KPI: |
Applications Completed |
|
Description: |
Outbound mail for completed files. |
|
Definition: |
|
|
Status: |
Proposed as Core KPI. |
|
KPI: |
Applications/Mail in Process |
|
Description: |
All files remaining open at end of reporting period. Represents the 'work in progress' within the processing centre. |
|
Definition: |
Previous open files + applications received less applications completed. |
|
Status: |
Proposed as Core KPI. |
Metrics for Delay
|
KPI: |
Average Cycle Time (ACT) |
|
Description: |
The average elapsed time that the application/mail was held within the processing centre prior to completion. |
|
Objective: |
Primary Indicator of visitor satisfaction. |
|
Definition: |
The total number of minutes from opening of envelope to mailing of response. |
|
Derivation: |
Measured by mail tracking system. |
|
Status: |
Recommended as a Core KPI. |
|
KPI: |
Pass Through Ratio |
|
Description: |
Ratio of total handling time to total cycle time. |
|
Objective: |
Primary Indicator of workflow efficiency. |
|
Definition: |
Total minutes of processing time (time in agent) divided by total elapsed time. Ratio should approach 1.0 to indicate zero delay between processes. |
|
Derivation: |
Measured by mail tracking system. |
|
Status: |
Recommended as an Core KPI. |
|
KPI: |
Service Level |
|
Description: |
Percentage of mail that are completed within target processing time. |
|
Objective: |
This measure is required in order to set and publish mail service standards. |
|
Definition: |
Applications completed within service threshold divided by total applications completed. |
|
Derivation: |
Measured by mail tracking system. |
|
Status: |
Recommended as an operational KPI. |
Metrics for Quality
|
KPI: |
Response Accuracy |
|
Description: |
Reliability of mail response/completion. |
|
Objective: |
To ensure program integrity. |
|
Definition: |
Local quality scorecard assessed by quality assurance review of outbound mail plus 'write backs' - One or more subsequent mail receipts for same applications. |
|
Derivation: |
QA report. |
|
Status: |
Under review. |
|
KPI: |
Professionalism |
|
Description: |
Encompasses a range of soft-skills that govern the approach to delivering accurate information and reliable services. |
|
Objective: |
Identifies and reinforces effective communication. |
|
Definition: |
Best measured through the use of an enclosed feedback postcard or through alternate channel surveys (e.g. post response phone call). |
|
Status: |
Under review. May be impractical in several service models. |
|
KPI: |
Critical Error Rate |
|
Description: |
Some operations monitor application/transaction errors (typically omission of required information) requiring additional interactions with clients. |
|
Objective: |
Assessment of application instructions to clients |
|
Status: |
Proposed as an operational measure. Applicability to be reviewed. |
Metrics for Client Satisfaction
|
KPI: |
Client Satisfaction Level |
|
Description: |
Application of Common Measurement Tool (CMT) to assess and benchmark client satisfaction |
|
Objective: |
Primary indicator of client perception of service quality, measured repeatedly, trends provide strong evidence of service improvement levels |
|
Derivation: |
The multi-channel survey tool will be used (at a minimum) to establish the "CSat" level for in-person services. |
|
Status: |
Recommended as core KPI. |
|
KPI: |
Service Complaints |
|
Description: |
Count and categorization of complaints received through all channels concerning the mail channel. |
|
Objective: |
Primary indicator of service quality particularly when measured over time. |
|
Definition: |
Total service complaints received during reporting period divided by total number of mail received. |
|
Derivation: |
Counted by incident tracking system. Complaints received through other channels must be added to total. |
|
Status: |
Recommended as core KPI. Caveat: Members noted that current systems do not currently support the collection and categorization of service complaints that are received through a wide variety of channels (e.g. Minister's correspondence, general e-mails, phone call) |
Key Performance Indicators - Mail Channel continued
MAF Category: Stewardship
Metrics for Agent Utilization
|
KPI: |
Cost per Contact |
|
Description: |
Total labour costs divided by total service requests. |
|
Objective: |
Provides a snapshot of current operational efficiency specifically related to agent/manpower. |
|
Definition: |
TBD |
|
Status: |
Recommended as Core KPI. Definition of labour cost to be determined. |
|
KPI: |
Agent Capacity |
|
Description: |
The anticipated number of hours of agent time available for mail service for each agent. |
|
Objective: |
Ensures that agent resources are dedicated to required service functions. |
|
Status: |
Recommended as operational KPI for mail processing service models. |
|
KPI: |
Resource Allocation |
|
Description: |
A management indicator assessing allocated agent positions to service delivery. |
|
Objective: |
Measures effective use of channel resources. |
|
Definition: |
Locally defined |
|
Status: |
Recommended as operational KPI for mail processing service models. |
|
KPI: |
Agent Adherence |
|
Description: |
An assessment of service agent adherence to schedule and making oneself available during anticipated service periods. |
|
Objective: |
Contributes to resourcing effectiveness |
|
Definition: |
Calculated as total agent login time divided by scheduled work time |
|
Status: |
Recommended as operational KPI for queued service models. |
|
KPI: |
Agent Occupancy |
|
Description: |
The percentage of agent time spent in direct mail service including "wrap up time". |
|
Objective: |
Ensures accurate resourcing levels to achieve target service levels. |
|
Definition: |
(Response time + wrap up time) divided by total agent log in time over measured period. |
|
Suggested benchmark / Range: |
TBD |
|
Status: |
Recommended as operational KPI for mail service models. |
Metrics for Service Effectiveness
|
KPI: |
|
|
Description: |
|
|
Objective: |
|
|
Definition: |
|
|
Status: |
|
Metrics for Use of Technology
|
KPI: |
Automated Response Ratio |
|
Description: |
Ratio of applications received and completed but not handled by agents to total applications received. |
|
Objective: |
|
|
Definition: |
|
|
Status: |
Proposed as an Operational KPI. |
Metrics for Channel Take-up
|
KPI: |
Applications Received |
|
Description: |
Total applications/mail entering the processing centre. |
|
Objective: |
Measures overall service demand |
|
Definition: |
See Access measure. |
|
Status: |
Proposed as Core KPI. |
Key Performance Indicators - Mail Channel continued
MAF Category: People
Total Months - Staff on Strength, Average Months on Strength per Agent: A measure of the total experience level of the agents/staff within the service centre. Monitoring this over time provides a measure of the impact of staff turnover.
Staff Turnover Ratio: A measure of the 'churn' rate within the Agent team. Provides a secondary indicator of service centre health and it often correlates to overall customer satisfaction levels.
Agent Coaching Ratio: Number of hours of 1 on 1 coaching time/agent. Helps measure the utilization of service centre supervisor time as well as the investment in agent skill improvement.
Training Days/Agent: Total training days delivered during the measurement period divided by the number of agents. Training is required for program/service delivery, for technology, and for the development of skills related to professionalism and customer interaction.
Further discussion with departments and agencies will be conducted to identify effective KPIs under this MAF category.
12.0 Using Service Delivery KPI's in Departmental Reporting
The MAF provides the primary framework for departments to prepare required annual performance reports to provide formal feedback to Deputy Ministers. Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat is developing a Web-based approach to support and streamline departmental performance reporting.
Service delivery key performance Indicators will become an important component of these departmental reports and will significantly contribute to common understanding of overall service channel performance across government.
13.0 Contact Information
Further information, suggestions and contributions can be forwarded to:
Service Delivery Improvement
Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat
2745 Iris Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0R5
Victor Abele (Abele.Victor@tbs-sct.gc.ca)
Director, Service Delivery Improvement
Telephone: (613) 946-6264
Fax: (613) 952-7232
Shalini Sahni (Sahni.Shalini@tbs-sct.gc.ca)
Analyst
Telephone: (613) 948-1119
Fax: (613) 952-7232
Appendix A: Terms and Definitions
ACD - Automatic Call Distributor - a software/hardware device that manages call queues, delivers IVR recordings as selected by the caller, and routes calls from the queue to appropriate agents based on any number of caller parameters
CTI - Computer Telephony Integration - technology that provides an integrated phone/computer capability to the service agent. CTI provides features such as automatic caller file retrieval, soft phone, referral/call back electronic forms with response script suggestion, caller wait time, and quick access to the mainframe and online reference material.
Channel - The primary service channels are telephone, Internet, mail and in-person.
IVR/VR - Interactive Voice Response/Voice Recognition - two related terms describing two types of self-service technology employed in the Telephone Service Channel. Interactive Voice Response provides the caller with a series of options to be selected using the telephone keypad. Voice Recognition allows the caller to speak the question or say an option from a recorded list.
KPI - Key Performance Indicator - a measurable objective which provides a clear indication of service centre capability, quality, customer satisfaction, etc.
Appendix B: References
Citizen First 3 report, 2003. Erin Research Inc, Institute for Citizen-Centred Service, Institute of Public Administration of Canada.
Common Web Traffic Metrics Standards, March 21, 2003. Version 1.1., Treasury Board Secretariat, Canada.
Key Performance Indicators Workshop, 2003. Service Delivery Improvement, Treasury Board Secretariat, Canada.
Performance Management Metrics for DWP Contact Centres, March 14, 2003. Version 2.0. Ivackovic and Costa. Department of Works and Pensions, United Kingdom.
Peformance Measures for Federal Agency Websites: Final Report. October 1, 2000. McClure, Eppes, Sprehe and Eschenfelder. Joint report for Defense Technical Information Center, Energy Infomration Administration and Government Printing Office, U.S.A.
Service Improvement Initiative - How to Guide, 2000. Treasury Board Secretariat, Canada.
Service Management Framework Report, 2004. Fiona Seward. Treasury Board Secretariat Canada and Burntsands Consulting.
Summary Report on Service Standards, 2001. Consulting and Audit Canada (Project 550-0743)
Appendix C: Summary of Core Key Performance Indicators
These core indicators were vetted by the working group and are recommended for inclusion into the MAF.
|
Phone |
In-person |
Internet |
|
|
Call Access |
Visitor Access |
Search Engine Ranking |
Applications/Pieces Opened |
|
Caller Access |
Client Satisfaction Level |
Direct Access Ratio |
Applications Completed |
|
Abandoned Calls |
Service Complaints |
Server Availability Percentage |
Applications/Mail in Process |
|
Average Speed to Answer |
Cost per Contact |
Referral Percentage |
Average Cycle Time |
|
Answer Accuracy |
Visitors |
Conversion Rate |
Pass Through Ratio |
|
Client Satisfaction Level |
|
Site Error Messages |
Client Satisfaction Level |
|
Cost per Call |
|
Professionalism |
Service Complaints |
|
First Call Resolution |
|
Client Satisfaction Level |
Cost per Contact |
|
Call Avoidance |
|
Cost per Visit, Cost per Visitor |
Applications Received |
|
Calls Answered by IVR Successfully |
|
Visits |
|
|
Calls |
|
Visitors |
|
|
Callers |
|
|
|