Produktivitätsverlust durch manuelle Gesprächsauswertung

Definition

Collection environments generate very large call volumes. An Australian QA software vendor notes that "if you are a call centre making tens of thousands of calls a day, it would take you months to go through 1 day's worth of calls", and argues that quality assurance software is required to audit calls efficiently and provide prompt feedback.[2] Another provider observes that most call centres audit only "any two calls" per agent and that it takes "weeks and weeks" to provide feedback, whereas automated quality management can audit all calls in a fraction of the time.[5] In debt collection, lagged or minimal QA coverage means that compliance and performance issues persist for weeks before being detected, directly reducing recovery rates (e.g. poor negotiation technique, failure to offer suitable arrangements) and increasing complaint risk. Supervisors and team leaders typically spend several hours per week per agent on manual call listening and scoring, yet still cover only a small sample. For a collection agency with dozens of agents, this is a major capacity drain that could otherwise be used for coaching high‑risk accounts or strategy optimisation.

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Australian 🇦🇺 collection agencies lose hundreds of supervisor hours per month manually scoring calls while auditing less than 1–2% of interactions. Automating call recording analytics and QA scoring frees this capacity and improves collections yield.

Affected Stakeholders

Contact Centre Manager, Team Leaders / Supervisors, Quality Assurance Manager, Head of Operations, HR / Training Manager

Related Business Risks