There are so many excellent points made in The Year of CRM, With a Twist, that it's difficult to just pick a few excerpts. So here's the complete article by Joshua Greenbaum, a Principal with Enterprise Applications Consulting:

Some acronyms never die, even if in many ways their time has come and gone. CRM – or customer relationship management - is one such dinosaur.

To be sure, working more closely with customers is something that every company wants to do more of, and lots of software and services are being bought with that goal in mind.. Nonetheless, I’m ready to declare the end of CRM again, even if the quantity of financial, economic, and buyer activity around CRM is making it look like 2006 is going to be the Year of CRM, once again.

The problem is the following: As the breadth of customer-related activity – and software sales – grows, it’s becoming harder and harder to use the over-arching term CRM to compare one vendor’s offering to another. What SAP, Oracle, Salesforce.com and Microsoft, not to mention Onyx, Rightnow and others, call CRM is rapidly becoming more different than anyone wants admit. So different that we’re not just trying to compare apples to oranges – it’s looking more like apples to walnuts, or oranges to orangutans.

Sure, it’s all about the customer – that’s the easy part. But, if you really look at what’s happening in enterprise software, everything is all about the customer. It’s hard to find software that doesn’t impact the customer relationship: working with customers imbues activities in every part of the organization, from sales, service, support, marketing, and product development, to finance, supply chain, document management – and on and on.

Where the rubber hits the road today in the competitive CRM market turns out to be all about the non-CRM parts of a vendor’s offering. Tom Siebel talked about an important version of this issue in what I call his concession speech – the speech he made when the deal for Oracle to buy Siebel was announced. Remember, Siebel was always the CRM feature/functionality leader, and there was Tom saying he was selling out to Oracle because it was in that non-CRM domain, called connectivity to the back-office, where his company had failed to thrive.

More Than Just Customer Management

Similarly, Microsoft just had a blow-out quarter for its CRM product. But the reason is not because it’s the best CRM product in the business, but because it connects so well to Microsoft Office. SAP comes out with a CRM On Demand offering that is genuinely good at customer management – but the best reason to buy is that it connects seamlessly to the SAP back office. And now that the Siebel deal has closed, Oracle is out pushing Siebel’s vertical functionality, its analytics, and its on-demand offering. And, by the way, its CRM feature/functionality too.

In other words, what’s really important in the world of CRM is not the traditional CRM functions of sales-force automation, contact management, call center operations, and the like. What’s important about CRM turns out to be what has always been important to business users: connectivity, low-cost, industry-specific functionality, and usability.

This give some color to the efforts of Salesforce.com to move beyond its once pioneering point of differentiation, now that everyone is doing on demand. Ironically, this is the company that was among the first to understand that CRM is more than just customer management. Now it’s a company trying to find the next big non-CRM thing that CRM customers are looking for. Before someone gets there first. Hence its multiple attempts to be a platform supplier, to grow beyond on demand and become something bigger, and hence something more strategic.

So as the latest “Year of CRM” unfolds, keep an eye on the part of every vendor’s offering that’s not about CRM. The CRM hype will always be there, but the real points of differentiation will be seriously far from the old CRM that we worried about during the last Year of CRM, whenever that was.

Meanwhile, I’m going to spend the year trying to think of a new acronym to describe what’s going on in the market today. Because if everything is about managing customer relationships, then CRM is an increasingly redundant term, and those vendors that rely solely on their pure-play CRM capabilities will begin to become redundant too. It’s 2006 and CRM is dead. Meanwhile, for those managing customer relationships, it’s going to be a great year.

It seems that Phil Wainewright's The Scandal of SAP's Idle CRM Seats "struck a raw nerve" and garnered quite a bit of negative commentary. But, Phil isn't backing down.  Here are several excerpts from his follow-up post, Why pay SAP for software you don't use?:

Seems like I struck a raw nerve when I wrote:

"The dirty secret why SAP had to launch an on-demand CRM offering is that its on-premises product is too hard to implement … as many as two thirds of the CRM licences SAP has sold are lying idle, according to one estimate."

First of all I got an email from SAP's PR company stating that my If I were one of those customers, I'd be really fuming by now"accusations and conclusions" were based on "erroneous information" in the source article at SearchSAP.com that I had linked to.  But neither of my key points— that SAP myCRM is hard to implement, and that AMR estimates about two-thirds of purchased seats remain unused — were revelations that haven't been substantiated elsewhere.

The email from SAP's PR rep went on to refute my opening assertion:

"There is NO link between the introduction of SAP CRM on-demand and implementation rate of other mySAP CRM customers. mySAP CRM and SAP CRM on-demand solution are two different products designed to meet distinctly different customer needs. There are a host of reasons as to why mySAP CRM customers purchase the suite and either wait to implement or take a phased approach to going live on the solution. It has nothing to do with the solution and its ease of use."

Notice there's no denial there that many mySAP CRM seats are lying idle — albeit for "a host of reasons." In fact, research from Gartner indicates that I may have been overgenerous to SAP when I put the figure of unused licences at two thirds. In 2004, Gartner found that "only 19 percent of mySAP CRM buyers actually use it" — which means four fifths don't. Even where it was deployed, Gartner found that most customers "have less than 50 seats in production."

I think if I were one of those customers, I'd be really fuming by now. Not only have I bought more seats than I can possibly use, now I'm lumbered with paying annual maintenance fees on them! This was the crux of my posting, that the business model of conventional packaged software vendors means they concentrate on selling licences no matter what, whereas on-demand vendors only get paid for live seats. As I explained when spelling out What makes on-demand better, the pay-as-you-go model creates a powerful incentive for vendors to make sure users get productive as quickly as possible with the application.  What incentive does SAP have when it's already banked its licence fees and is earning maintenance on software that's sitting on a shelf?

SAP may not realize that it's being compelled to enter the on-demand market because its conventional software is being sold where it's not needed and is too hard to implement anyway. But those are the market dynamics, and until SAP actually does face up to them, it's unlikely to produce an on-demand alternative of its own that properly addresses these issues — which is why its current offering is such a disappointment.

Jason Wood responded to Phil's post in Memo to Phil Wainewright...Shelfware isn't Scandalous. Check it out to see why Jason believes that:

• It's not a 'scandal'
• It's not news
• There are many legitimate reasons for the existence of shelfware
• CIOs know they're getting shelfware, and should be fired if they don't
• You don't pay maintenance on undeployed seats, or at least you shouldn't

Software companies have always encouraged their customers to buy now (typically at a discounted price) rather then to add software licenses as they are needed; and they've been able to get away with it.  The on-demand software-as-a-service (SaaS) model is definitely now causing many to question this practice; especially when many of the software companies add insult to injury by charging up to 20% per year of the retail price of all software licenses purchased (used or unused) for maintenance and support.

Here are just a few excerpts from Making Customer Care The Top Priority:

If Bright House Networks can stave off competition from DirecTV Inc., Dish Network and Knology Holdings Inc., and generate 10% phone penetration within one year of service, it must be doing something right with customer care.

The secret, said vice president of customer care Bill Futch, is hiring good employees, giving them the tools to do their jobs as efficiently as possible, and creating good experiences when customers call.

“It boils down to having the right people in place,” he said. “You have to have effective training and knowledge management.”

For Bright House the keys to accomplishing that include:

• Creating an internal Internet-protocol-based communications platform between offices and employees so any customer service representative in any field office can handle any phone call from any subscriber;
• Directing employees to screen recruits as part of the job interview process;
• Providing free service calls for problems inside the home;
• Contacting subscribers after installations or recent service calls to see if their problem had been resolved; and
• Calling subscribers on their fifth-year anniversary to thank them for their business.

The current customer service push started nearly four years ago. “We sat down with the executive team in March 2002 and discussed where we wanted to be with customer care,” Futch said.

Overall, “our objective is to answer 90% of the calls within 30 seconds. Thirty percent of the time the issue is resolved before they get to a representative” because of automated response units that help subscribers with problems, he said.

Usually, cable systems want to have as few customer service calls as possible. But every call gives Bright House an opportunity to solve a problem, add a new service or create a better impression of the cable company in the consumer’s mind, Futch said.

Call volume can be driven by questions about new services, like HDTV, DTV or VoIP, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

“We do a lot of surveys internally, and those subscribers that have more interaction with us are more satisfied,” Futch said. “It’s an opportunity to enhance the relationship with our customers.”

Although Futch believes Bright House has improved on customer service, “we still have the opportunity to drive those metrics higher.” For instance, he wants to de-emphasize the three-minute average call-time metric. Urging customer care representatives to solve all calls in three minutes can lead to frustrated subscribers. “We need to create a good experience for them. With high-speed data issues, don’t speak technical jargon to them. We try to help the customer solve their problem.”

For much more about Bright House Network's customer care programs, plans and philosophies, see the source article.

In Is It Time for Call-Center Workers To Ditch the Script?, the following is noted:

Having to deal with a disinterested, robotic voice on the other end of the phone is frustrating enough. It is even worse when that voice belongs to a human who is sticking rigidly to an inflexible script.
 
Mindful of the irritation this causes, Lloyds TSB recently scrapped scripts after research revealed that 90 percent of customers were infuriated by its call center staff's use of prompts.

John Price, managing director of Price Direct notes: "A script is an important aid to starting the conversation, as it often includes data that the client needs. But ultimately the prospect must feel there is a human talking to them."

According to Lloyds TSB's research, customers feel that call handlers who use scripts do not listen to their questions properly. Price maintains that a common-sense approach, combined with training, can counter this: "You will achieve the best results when prospects have the feeling that they have been treated like a human being.

"But it's a fine balance. Either people stick to a script and sound like a parrot, or call centers don't brief their staff enough and the quality and adherence to the code of practice get neglected."

One firm that will definitely not be following in Lloyds TSB's footsteps is customer contact specialist LBM. Account director Kevin Norton claims scripts work well if call handlers are trained properly. "With the right training, agents can make scripts their own. They can build a rapport with the prospect, so that the conversation is friendly and interactive."

Norton also believes scripts are instrumental in explaining a company's needs and selling points, and that they make it easier for a call center's clients to measure performance. He explains: "We use scripts as a call guide. They enable our agents to manage the call. Some clients are stricter with scripts than others. But so long as the agent understands the script, they can make it sound more personable."

My experience has been that most call center personnel don't use scripts as call guides but rather take the "easy" approach of delivering the content verbatim.  This can be a real turn-off; especially when someone tries to ask a question or say no. They just ramble on and on until you get mad and hang up. Using a script as a call guide takes a lot of practice; practice that for most agents goes undone because they are neither motivated or compensated for this skill.  The biggest problem however may be that most call centers don't measure how many people (both existing and potential customers) either get angry when they get a scripted call and ask to be put on the "Do Not Call List,"or get so angry that they stop or will never do business with the company.  Maybe if these results were tracked, instead of showing positive results from scripted calls, the call center executives would realize that the net results (new business minus lost business) is a "wash" or worse yet, a negative drain on revenues and profits.

Here are this past week's most interesting CRM marketplace news items:

• Former Siebel CTO Bernard Pech Joins Salesforce.com
• Salesforce.com launches site to report outages
• Interview: Microsoft CRM General Manager Brad Wilson
• Salesnet Gets Nearer to Full CRM Suite Functionality
• Salesnet Broadens CRM Reach
• Sage and Vodafone partner on mobile CRM
• SAP's McDermott, Stutz Dish On CRM On Demand
• FrontRange Links Telephony to CRM in GoldMine
• Sona Mobile Announces Agreement with SugarCRM For Wireless CRM Applications
• Microsoft and SugarCRM Announce Technical Collaboration
• Oracle Buys Sleepycat
• 37signals Launches Campfire
• Microsoft Readies BlackBerry Alternative
• Skype Introduces Next Generation Mobile Application for Pocket PC
• Nokia kills Vonage?
• MobileAware, InFact To Mobilize mCRM
• SPSS Reports Record Revenues; Strong Increases in Profitability and Cash Flow
• App Support Upstarts Promise Lower Costs

In Setting Standards Will Help E-Service Shine, the following was noted:

The appeal of cost savings resulting from e-service initiatives can be hard to resist for many companies. Although lowering costs continues to be an integral motivation, improving customer satisfaction is the most important driver behind launching such technologies, according to a joint study by ServiceXRG and Service Strategies.

Increasing customer satisfaction tops the list of primary drivers for deploying interactive e-services such as chat, email, and support forms, at 90.4 percent. That is followed by improving service-level performance (83.8 percent) and reducing costs (74.3 percent). Only 11.3 percent of respondents classify competitive pressure as a primary driver (representing the lowest tally in the category), but 88.7 percent designate it a secondary driver. "E-services (and services overall) are often not perceived as a competitive differentiator, but a means to sustain competitive parity," says Tom Sweeny, a principal at ServiceXRG.

The top motivators behind deploying self-services like FAQs and knowledge bases paint a similar picture. Increasing customer satisfaction shows the highest percentage 94.4 percent), followed by improving service-level performance and reducing costs (both at 77 percent). Competitive pressure is a primary driver for 22.6 percent of respondents, but a secondary motivator for 77.4 percent.

Results also indicate that only about 19.3 percent of companies offer live interactive support channels.  "Live interactive chat/IM has had a slow start, partly because it is labor-intensive, requires support staff to be available, etc. The cost efficiencies are realized based on a single support engineer being able to respond concurrently to multiple customer requests." Another reason for its slow adoption, he says, is fear of the unknown: "While we have found that customers find this kind of service to be effective once they try it, there is a reluctance to actually try it for the first time."

Once technology companies have decided to deliver e-service functionality, however, submitting new electronic cases (90.9 percent) and managing cases electronically (80.7 percent) lead the pack in interactive e-services offered. "We will see more focus and consolidation on electronic services that foster closer working relationships [with] the service provider," Sweeney says. "Submitting and managing cases as well as personalization are high growth areas."

The bottom line, though, according to Sweeny, is that the industry is entering a maturity in e-service offerings that demands established standards for measuring success, defining best practices, and monitoring the performance of these initiatives. "Based on the formalization of standards, benchmarks, and best practices...we will see further consolidation in the number of e-services we offer and a greater focus on a few e-services that are embraced by customers and deliver tangible business benefits."

For more about this study and its results, check out the source article.

As the dust begins to settle on SAP's on-demand CRM announcement let's stir things up a little; here are several excerpts from The Scandal of SAP's Idle CRM Seats:

The dirty secret why SAP had to launch an on-demand CRM offering is that its on-premises product is too hard to implement, reveals SearchSAP.com:

"SAP customers couldn't get mySAP CRM up and running quickly, said Adam J. Klaber who oversees CRM consulting in IBM's Business Consulting Services division … 'There were a lot of quick pieces but it required a set of infrastructure that you add on to what you have today,' he said."

The result is that as many as two thirds of the CRM licenses SAP has sold are lying idle, according to one estimate. Robert Bois, research director at AMR Research Inc, says, "SAP claims to have 3,000 customers using CRM, but we believe only about a third of those are in full deployment."

Based on AMR's estimate, as many as two thousand customers who've bought licences from SAP aren't live yet. An on-demand vendor would have earned no revenue from those customers. Perhaps SAP should start offering refunds?

No wonder customers have been signing up for on-demand alternatives from other vendors. But will SAP's new hosted CRM offering stem the haemorrhage? According to analyst Joshua Greenbaum, quoted in the same article, SAP customers "are lured to hosted CRM because of intuitive interfaces and easy set ups." Those attractions are likely to remain just as strong, since SAP's own hosted CRM product is based on its difficult-to-implement on-premises stablemate.

Another obstacle is SAP's spurning of a multitenant architecture for its hosted product.The economics of hosting each customer on their own separate server and database mean that any implementation has to have at least a hundred seats to be viable. That's a big commitment from the get-go, one that only the most loyal of SAP customers will be willing to make. It's inevitable that the rest will continue to buy alternatives from other vendors, until SAP learns its lesson and properly embraces the on-demand model.

In Seven Ways to Keep "the Customer" Front and Center, the following is noted:

Customers today have infinite choices. Any product or service they could ever desire is just within their reach, usually only a mouse-click away. In our global economy, hundreds of competitors may rise and fall practically overnight. What's more, today's customer is smart, savvy, and well educated. With so many brands and organizations waiting to serve, she could choose any company. You have to give her a good reason to choose yours.

In his insightful new book, Becoming a Customer-Focused Organization, Quality expert Craig Cochran concisely outlines the fundamental steps necessary to build (or ebuild, as the case may be) a company that meets the needs and demands of the customers who are responsible for its existence.

"The customer is the sole reason organizations of any kind exist," Cochran points out. "The moment an organization stops focusing on the customer, it will start to fall apart. A successful organization always puts the customer's best interest first."

Here's are some of Cochran's insights regarding how the keep the customer front and center.

1. Play "follow the leader": good leadership drives customer focus.
2. Remind employees of their mission within the organization.
3. Shine a spotlight on employees.
4. Recognize outstanding service.
5. Realize that smart organizations learn from their mistakes.
6. Consider using a focus group.
7. Keep customers informed of improvements.

Overall, a successful organization is one that offers the best services possible to their targeted clientele and does all it can to ensure that customers' needs are met with promptness, gratitude, and courtesy. Any problem issues that arise with customers should be documented and addressed immediately. Meanwhile, management should research all possible modes of innovation to continue bringing the customer superior-quality service.

Cochran sums it up well: "When an organization strives to bring the customer the very best, the customer will time and time again repay the organization with years of loyal patronage and thus keep the organization alive."

For more detail on each of the above insights, see the source article.

In his A Better Alternative to Sales Coaching post, Frank Rumbauskas, Jr. discusses his experience thus far with the Simpleology program; "the science of getting what you want." Here's several excerpts from his post:

Recently I looked into getting a personal coach for a number of reasons, mainly due to a lack of accountability to myself when it comes to getting things done and not procrastinating. Just as I was researching executive coaches, fellow author Mark Joyner told me about his Simpleology program.

It's an online course that involves a daily lesson & exercise (a "Praxis") you do first thing each day. It only takes 10 minutes, if that. I'm about halfway through Mark's course, and I'm stunned at how much more I'm getting done, how focused I suddenly am, and how I suddenly have no need for a coach anymore thanks to Mark!!!

Simpleology is free. You sign up and get immediate access to the course materials (numerous .pdf downloads, videos, exercises, and audo files).

This sounded like something that I could benefit from so I read the pitch on their Home Page and OK, it does sound enticing, if not one of those too good to be true schemes.  Personally, I've always subscribed to the Rollling Stone's claim that "You Can't Always Get What You Want."  Oh well, it's free to try, so try it I will.  I'll let you know if I get any benefits from it.  Better yet, don't wait for me, try it out for yourself. The only cost is about 15 minutes of your time each day during the 18 day course.

Here are this past week's most interesting CRM marketplace news items:

• Sage, Business Objects In Crystal Reports SMB CRM Deal
• CRM Upstart (SalesGene) Eyes Hot Market
• SAP to Blend ERP, On-Demand CRM
• Oracle to lay off 2,000 after Siebel acquisition
• Is Oracle Turning PeopleSoft?
• BizTalk Adds Connectivity To PeopleSoft, JD Edwards, And Siebel
• Brainshark Announces CRM Integration Offering to Increase Sales Effectiveness
• Talisma® Announces Talisma Professional Edition
• Sendia Delivers WorkSpace CRM 4.0 for Salesforce.com
• Aspective launches Microsoft-based data ready CRM solution
• Latest Version of StayinFront CRM Mobile Offers Enhanced Configurability, Flexibility and Synchronization
• TenDigits Software releases a new version MobileAccess for Microsoft Dynamics CRM 3.0
• MTC Changes Name of CRM Resource Site from MTCCRM.com to DynamicsCenter.com 
• NaviSite to Integrate Centive Compel with Its CRM System
• Business Objects buys Firstlogic
• Convergys Links CRM to Billing Support
• Keynote Systems Expands WebEffective
• RIM Develops BlackBerry 'Workaround' Plan
• Sony Ericsson Intros BlackBerry Killer
• Orative Releases New Software Providing Critical Access to Mobile Employees
• Customers Forever Hosts First-Ever CRM Conference for the Caribbean and Latin America in Miami
• Salesnet President Jonathan Tang Ready to Take On Salesforce.com
• Hosted ECM Vendor (SpringCM) Shoots for Midmarket
• Hosted App Customers Look for SLAs with Teeth
• On-Demand Vendors Link to Third-Party Applications
• Yahoo and AOL Plan Bulk E-Mail Fees
• Google Upgrades Desktop Software
• Google, Skype Fund Global Wi-Fi Network

Here are several excerpts from Oracle Outlines Siebel Plans:

As it had previously said, the core Fusion CRM features will be based on Siebel functionality, augmented by the most important functions from the Oracle, PeopleSoft, and JD Edwards CRM application set, although these are yet to be defined. While it makes sense from Oracle's point of view and in a development sense, it does spell the end of the non-Siebel CRM applications, or more specifically the principles behind their mode of operation.

It could create consternation among PeopleSoft CRM users in particular because prior to the Siebel acquisition there was an expectation that the PeopleSoft CRM application would form the CRM aspect of Fusion. However, Oracle is still committing to the scheduled releases of Siebel 8.0, PeopleSoft CRM 9.0, JD Edwards CRM 8.12, and Oracle E-Business Suite 12 during 2006, with extended support beyond that.

Oracle dismissed fears that the Siebel addition would slow down its Fusion development plans.

Analytics is another area where Oracle is planning to use much of Siebel's functionality, integrating its CRM analytics with Oracle's ERP analytics on both a platform and an operational application level. It is taking a wait-and-see stance on future developments, and is waiting for customer feedback. Similarly the Siebel on-demand operation is being left to continue operating as before with no planned changes.

One unusual aspect of Oracle's plans is that Siebel is receiving different treatment to PeopleSoft and JD Edwards because they were immediately integrated on an operational level with merged operations and sales teams. Siebel appears to be continuing on a semi-independent basis as Oracle maintains a dedicated CRM organization and a separate dedicated analytics operation.

For more detail, particularly on the technical side, check out the source article.

A New Approach to CRM discusses a new on-demand sales force automation (SFA) solution that includes administrative assistance for data input and maintenance. Here are several excerpts:

Customer relationship management (CRM) is as crowded, noisy, and ferociously contested a marketplace as you'll find within e-business these days. That's why the launch of SalesGene is so intriguing.

The company, which is debuting its own $100 per user per month hosted CRM solution within the realm of sales force automation (SFA), nonetheless believes that it can seize an opportunity hitherto neglected by CRM vendors large and small. 

"Most of the technologies currently available are designed for management, not directly for the salesperson," claims Razi Imam, president and CEO of SalesGene. "The products make them do data entry for management forecasts."

Forecasts and pipeline visibility are part of the high-level value proposition of CRM, but SalesGene is betting that not all companies will prioritize them to the same extent. Instead, the company hopes to profit by targeting its solution to the average salesperson and bolstering, at every step, direct interactions with the buyer.

This happens as follows. First, SalesGene gives users a way to search for and source key content from within their own organization (such as a white paper) for use in a deal situation. Secondly, SalesGene allows users to create a shared workspace with buyers. A salesperson sends an e-mail with a link that, when clicked by a buyer, allows both parties to share content, proposals, RFP data, and more. A partnership with WebEx allows this collaborative interaction to become more interactive, should the need arise. Finally, SalesGene provides a third-party administrative service to salespeople using the product. Every user gets an 800 number that connects with administrative report. "The assistant will enter contacts, update opportunities, check off boxes to move deals into the next phase, and send thank-you e-mails," says Imam, by way of example.

The idea of incorporating an administrative CRM data maintenance service into part of the on-demand SFA solution certainly is an interesting concept, but not a totally original one. An administrative CRM data maintenance service has been available from a company called My Sales Data, Inc. for more than three years.  With this service, the sales reps simply record whatever they want through a toll-free access number and a My Sales Data agent professionally and securely transcribes the information directly into the rep's CRM application. The My Sales Data service works with all CRM applications, including Siebel, Peoplesoft, Salesforce.com, SAP, Onyx, and C2crm.

The other reservation I have with SalesGene is that it enters the marketplace as a stand-alone SFA solution at a time when it appears that the market is moving away from best of breed solutions to comprehensive suites of business applications (including CRM and ERP) from a single vendor.

Here are several excerpts from What Makes a Good Call Center Agent?:

For everyone in call center management who regularly has the opportunity to walk the floor and scan the rows of faces, you’ve no doubt pondered the questions at the heart of employee retention:  Why do certain call center agents excel in this environment while others fail?  Why are some happy and others dissatisfied?  How can some people thrive when others can’t keep pace?  

Perhaps a bigger question is:  How can you identify an individual’s potential before extending the offer?

Personality models can typically describe an individual’s dominant personality traits, which is helpful when you’re trying to improve collaboration among a group of people.  However, current research confirms that no single personality type dictates success among call center agents.
 
So what makes a good call center agent?  There are many complex explanations and models to address this question.  In this article, Select International presents the answers compiled from many years of primary research and profiling agents in hundreds of call centers to collect over 2 million data points to date.  It is from this data that the unique model for identifying Success Profiles of effective agents was created. 

The Model

Four main factors influence whether individuals will become great call center agents.  The more of these factors that are aligned and in play, the more likely the agent will be successful: 
 
1.Competencies
2.Motivational Fit
3.Personality
4.External Factors
 
These factors and all of the issues they cover are like a Rubik’s cube, interrelated in numerous ways.  But with the proper perspective and a framework for evaluating prospective employees, the puzzle becomes much easier to solve.
 
Select International’s research indicates that, while these are all important, the degree to which they affect an individual’s likelihood of success varies.

For a discussion of each of these factors and how they interrelate with each other, check out the source article.