It was WAY higher than double before cutting half the staff. I worked in Callcenter operations for a bit, and the targets we staffed to try to achieve were 80% of calls answered within 60 seconds, and 80% availability.
(Availability==true when there’s someone available to answer a call)
The former could be reached with as low as 66% availability, but if it dropped much below that the call answered rate would absolutely plummet, because people would hang up and call back, thinking they were lost in the queue.
If they’re answering only 5% now, doubling their staff would probably take them to 30-40% call amswered
Edit: I did not work for the CRA, I worked for a different call center, one that serviced Europeans (who pay by the minute to call in)
If they’re answering only 5% now, doubling their staff would probably take them to 30-40% call amswered
That, too me, would be worth getting those people back for. And if it’s higher (like 80% as you say), then they absolutely should be brought back to full staffing levels!
It was WAY higher than double before cutting half the staff. I worked in Callcenter operations for a bit, and the targets we staffed to try to achieve were 80% of calls answered within 60 seconds, and 80% availability.
(Availability==true when there’s someone available to answer a call)
The former could be reached with as low as 66% availability, but if it dropped much below that the call answered rate would absolutely plummet, because people would hang up and call back, thinking they were lost in the queue.
If they’re answering only 5% now, doubling their staff would probably take them to 30-40% call amswered
Edit: I did not work for the CRA, I worked for a different call center, one that serviced Europeans (who pay by the minute to call in)
That, too me, would be worth getting those people back for. And if it’s higher (like 80% as you say), then they absolutely should be brought back to full staffing levels!
Ah, I reread what I wrote - quick point of clarification, I didn’t work for the CRA call center