WO2007027112A1

WO2007027112A1 - Quality assurance processing for electronic text messages

Info

Publication number: WO2007027112A1
Application number: PCT/NZ2006/000229
Authority: WO
Inventors: Julian Tocker Barrett Smith; Kieron Paul Lawson
Original assignee: Datasquirt Limited
Priority date: 2005-09-01
Filing date: 2006-09-01
Publication date: 2007-03-08

Abstract

A quality assurance process for text based communications wherein users in a system create text based communications, each communication being addressed to one or more recipients, created communications are indicated complete by the creating user, and for each message an automated selection process determines whether the message is sent immediately, or whether the message is delayed for review by another user.

Description

"QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCESSING FOR ELECTRONIC TEXT MESSAGES"

BACKGROUND TO THE INVENTION

Field of the Invention

The present invention relates to a process and or system for quality assurance in relation to electronic text message communications.

Summary of the Prior Art

Quality Assurance, or QA typically facilitates a set of actions that ensure a product or service will meet a certain expectation or standard. In the context of a call centre environment, QA control commonly refers to the quality of communication between staff members and customers.

To provide an adequate level of control certain measures must be initiated. For each operator in a call centre who sends a message to a client, a member of higher level staff must oversee the message and assess it for an appropriate standard.

Cintech LLC, found at www.cintechllc.com describes a product where a supervisor can "monitor, edit, approve or reject and email before it is sent to a customer."

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

It is an object of the present invention to provide an improved quality assurance process and system for text based communications, or to at least provide the communication centre industry with a useful choice.

In a first aspect the invention may broadly be said to consist in a quality assurance process for text based communications wherein:

users create text based communications, each said communication being addressed to one or more recipients,

created communications are indicated complete by the creating user, and for each message an automated selection process determines whether the message is sent immediately, or whether the message is delayed for review by another user.

Preferably said automated selection process makes said determination on the basis of at least the identity of the user that created the communication.

Preferably said automated selection process makes said determination in part on the basis of the intended recipient of the communication.

Preferably said process makes said determination on the basis of an analysis of the content of the communication.

Preferably analysis of the contact of said communication includes scanning the text content for inappropriate language.

Preferably analysis of the contact of said communication includes identifying if the message has been created using an approved template, and if so sending said message without review.

Preferably said process makes said determination on the basis of a plurality of the factors in a weighted function.

Preferably each user has an assigned level, each client assigned threshold, and messages from the user are sent without review where the user level exceeds the client threshold.

Preferably 8 said selection process assesses the content of the communication.

Preferably other algorithms of comparison may be specified having equal or similar effect.

Preferably the selection process may include a random element.

Preferably the selection process selects a minimum percentage of communications for review according to the user level; Said reviewed messages may be selected randomly from all of the messages sent by the user. Preferably a random chance for review is applied to each message.

Preferably the selection process selects additional communications for review when queues of messages for review are empty of messages.

Preferably each communication delayed for review by another user is released to be sent immediately if the other user does not review the communication within a defined period of time.

Preferably the defined period of time may be applicable to all communications or may vary from communication to communication.

Preferably the reviewing user may delete, modify or accept the communication.

Preferably a record is kept of review actions and the messages that the review actions relate to.

Preferably said record is analysed or analysable to extract one or more of the following indicator statistics for each creating user:

messages sent, messages selected for review, reviewed messages deleted, reviewed messages accepted, reviewed messages modified.

Preferably this record is analysed or analysable to extract one or more of the following indicator statistics for each reviewing user:

messages sent for review, messages reviewed, messages sent without review due to delay, average delay in reviewing message, reviewed messages deleted, reviewed messages accepted, reviewed messages modified.

Preferably messages approved for sending by the creating user are placed in a first queue, said selection process is executed on each message in said first queue, messages determined for immediate sending are placed in an outbound message queue, and messages for review are placed in a message review queue.

Preferably a message times out in the review queue the message is transferred to the outbound message queue. Preferably a message is approved (with or without modifications) the message is transferred to the outbound message queue.

Preferably a message server stores a copy of each communication.

Preferably said stored copy is updated if said message is updated in said review process.

Preferably said stored copy includes information indicating any changes made in the review process.

Preferably the reviewing user is able to store one or more notes in relation to communication, and said notes are associated with said communication in said message server.

In a second aspect the invention may broadly be said to consist in a system implementing the process described above, said process being implemented in software executed on one or more computers.

To those skilled in the art to which the invention relates, many changes in construction and widely differing embodiments and applications of the invention will suggest themselves without departing from the scope of the invention as defined in the appended claims. The disclosures and the descriptions herein are purely illustrative and are not intended to be in any sense limiting.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

One preferred form of the present invention will now be described with reference to the accompanying drawings.

Figure 1 is a basic system diagram of the major hardware or software components within which the present invention is implemented,

Figure 2 is an example report showing statistical analysis of user performance in the quality assurance process, and

Figure 3 is a flow diagram of the review process of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

As used herein the term "and/or" means "and" or "or", or both.

As used herein the term "(s)" following a noun includes, as might be appropriate, the singular or plural forms of that noun.

The term "comprising" as used herein means "consisting at least in part of, that is to say when inteipreting independent paragraphs including that term, the features prefaced by that term in each paragraph will need to be present but other features can also be present.

Referring to Figure 1 a basic system diagram is depicted with a number of users connected through various interfaces. In the preferred embodiment a system server 4 is connected by a data network, either to the internet 3 or other data communications channels to a plurality of client computers 1, 2. Each client computer 1, 2 allows a customer services representative to interact with a messaging server 13. Each client computer 1, 2 may have custom client software performing one or more predetermined processes, or may be a thin client providing display and input capability, with the underlying processing all conducted on message server 13. The thin client may be implemented as a web browser based user interface.

The system server 3 is in turn connected to one or more short message service SMS gateways 7 via a send message agent 11 and a receive message agent 12. The SMS gateways 7 are capable of sending and receiving seven or eight bit data packets which often include short text messages or other data such as Calendar or Vcard messages. Each SMS gateway 7 is capable of sending through a cellular network 9 e.g. GSM or other protocols to cellular telephones 10. Each SMS gateway 7 is connected to other SMS gateways e.g. in other countries, through the internet or other data communications networks 8. In turn each cellular network 9 is interconnected to other cellular networks through similar data communication networks.

The message server 13, send message agent 11 and receiver message agent 12 may all be implemented as software components in server system 4 or may be implemented by custom devices. The present invention is implemented in the software of messaging server 13, the send message agent 11, the receiving agent 12 and any client program (where the client is not a thin client).

The present invention is designed for use in a communications/call centre environment. Call centres must be run efficiently to keep up with the often high number of incoming/outgoing client interactions.

The present invention provides a quality assurance (QA) process that provides contact centres with versatile capabilities to ensure that their outbound SMS communications are consistent, professional and appropriate. The QA module allows a user to review any outbound SMS message sent by any other user before it is sent to the final recipient.

The system of the present invention includes storage, typically in the form of a database fro storing messages, information on users and other user selectable business rules.

According to the preferred QA process:

A list of statistics is determined for each user. One statistic is their QA rating.

Anywhere between all or none of the outbound SMS messages created by the user can be sent to the review queue depending on the level of their QA rating.

When the user finalises an SMS message to be sent to a client cellular phone, the message is placed in a first queue. A selection process is executed by the present invention. The selection process determines whether the message is to be sent immediately or is to be subject to review. Messages to be sent immediately are placed in the appropriate outbound message queue. Messages to be reviewed are placed in the message review queue without being reviewed. The user is notified as to whether their message has been sent or queued. Queued messages are then held pending review by the QA user.

The appropriate person for overseeing the QA of each outbound message, or QA user, is then notified of the outbound message pending review. The QA user is presented with each queued message sequentially based on the order that the messages are queued. The QA user then determines the appropriate course of action for the outbound message. This may include sending the message to the recipient without editing the message, or editing the message then sending the message to the recipient, or deleting the message.

The QA user has the further option of recording a file note that may be used for future reference or training purposes.

Should an outbound message be held in a queue longer than a predetermined length of time, a timeout status will occur. The system time out is selectable according to the business rules of the business. The system provides an interface for an administrative user(s) to set and alter the business rule settings. Outbound message will be sent automatically if a timeout occurs, and the message is tagged as unchecked.

It is not always necessary for every message to be reviewed for an appropriate QA standard. The criterion for assessing whether a message is to go into QA is dependant upon key criteria, detailed by the following:

• The QA status of the user. This may be on or off, or may indicate a percentage of communications to be reviewed, for example from 0% to 100% or may indicate a specific level or competence.

• The user may force a message into the review queue where they want it be reviewed by another user, this would typically occur by the user selecting a tick box of the messaging client. • The skill level of the sending user may also be used as a criteria. Skill level is separate for QA status. For example marketing users may have a higher skill level than credit control users.

• The message can be placed into the review queue dependant on the mobile phone number (customer identity) that the message is being sent to (VIP customers), or the queue it is being sent on, or the actual content of the message. The queue the message is being sent on may indicate the sending number, which in turn may indicate the charge made for the communication. For example messages may be sent for review when the message is premium rated and the end customer pays to receive it. In addition to the mobile number that the message being sent to being a relevant factor, the customer or customer group associated with the message being sent is also a relevant criterion. • If a user prepares the outbound text message using predefined templates and these are unedited, the QA process is not required and the message is immediately sent.

• Messages my also be sent for review depending on whether or not they contain certain language. While it is envisages messages containing profanities would be sent for review. Business rules may provide that messages containing other unacceptable words are also sent for review.

• Messages may be sent for review depending on the time of day. For example during a peak period more or less of the messages may be reviewed. • AU the factors discussed above by be used in a weighted fashion, or in any other combination. Some factors may override others or the higher review factor may apply. For example if a customer has a QA review factor of 80% and a user has a QA factor of 60% then the system will apply the 80% and send 80% of the messages for review.

The system provides complex reporting around the QA status. This allows the performance and quality of work for a particular user to be assessed and compared with other users. Specifically the reports indicate the percentage of outbound messages that are sent without modification and the percentage that are deleted, edited or skipped because the QA reviewer did not get to them in time. An example report 201 is depicted in Figure 2.

In an embodiment of the invention the percentage of messages that are sent without modification may be used to alter the percentage of communications that are to be reviewed. Additionally the business rules my b e defined such that a base percentage of communications that are to be reviewed is set by an administrator and the system adjusts the applied percentage without going below the base. For example a new user may be set up with an applied review percentage of 80% with a base of 50%. The system will alter the applied review percentage based on the percentage of reviewed messages that are sent without change by a QA operator. Likewise the percentage of messages being amended by QA operators may be used to increase a users applied review percentage.

Referring to Figure 3 when the messaging server 13 receives a message a decision is made on whether to place the message in a review queue 305 or to send the message on without review 311. The criteria for review include those factors discussed above. If the message is not to be reviewed 304 it is moved to a send queue and is sent as soon as possible 311. The messages for review are made available to the QA user for review 306. A QA user will not be presented with messages they have sent that are to be reviewed, these messages will be reviewed by other QA users.

The QA user may send the message on without amending 306, may amend and send the message on 308 or may reject the message 309 entirely. Should a message not be reviewed before a time out set by business rules 310 the message is sent 311 without being reviewed.

The business rules may specify that messages are never sent until they have been reviewed.

While the above system is described with only one QA layer, multiple QA layers could be utilised so that some messages approved by a first level QA user are sent to a second level QA user. Factors influencing the decision as to whether a message is sent to a second QA user are similar to the first level. Business rules may specify different criteria to apply.

While the QA process implemented by the present invention has been described in relation to SMS of cellular phone messaging it is also applicable to other text messaging service, including email messaging.

Claims

1. A quality assurance process for text based communications wherein:

created communications are indicated complete by the creating user, and

for each message an automated selection process determines whether the message is sent immediately, or whether the message is delayed for review by another user.

2. A quality assurance process for text based communications as claimed in claim 1 wherein said automated selection process makes said determination on the basis of at least the identity of the user that created the communication.

3. A quality assurance process for text based communications as claimed in claim 1 or claim 2 wherein said automated selection process makes said determination in part on the basis of the intended recipient of the communication.

4. A quality assurance process for text based communications as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 3 wherein said process makes said determination on the basis of an analysis of the content of the communication.

5. A quality assurance process for text based communication as claimed in claim 4 wherein analysis of the contact of said communication includes scanning the text content for inappropriate language.

6. A quality assurance process for text based communication as claimed in claim 4 or claim 5 wherein analysis of the contact of said communication includes identifying if the message has been created using an approved template, and if so sending said message without review.

7. A quality assurance process for text based communications as claimed any one of claims 4 to 6 wherein said process makes said determination on the basis of a plurality of the factors in a weighted function.

8. A quality assurance process for text based communications as claimed in anyone of claims 1 to 7 wherein each user has an assigned level, each client assigned threshold, and messages from the user are sent without review where the user level exceeds the client threshold.

9. A quality assurance process for text based communications as claimed in claim 8 said selection process assesses the content of the communication.

10. A quality assurance process for text based communicated as claimed in claim 8 other algorithms of comparison may be specified having equal or similar effect.

11. A quality assurance process for text based communications as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 10 wherein the selection process may include a random element.

12. A quality assurance process for text based communications as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 11 wherein the selection process selects a minimum percentage of communications for review according to the user level; Said reviewed messages may be selected randomly from all of the messages sent by the user.

13. A quality assurance process for text based communications as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 12 wherein a random chance for review is applied to each message.

14. A quality assurance process for text based communications as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 14 wherein the selection process selects additional communications for review when queues of messages for review are empty of messages.

15. A quality assurance process for text based communications as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 14 wherein each communication delayed for review by another user is released to be sent immediately if the other user does not review the communication within a defined period of time.

16. A quality assurance process for text based communications as claimed in claim 15 wherein the defined period of time may be applicable to all communications or may vary from communication to communication.

17. A quality assurance process for text based communications as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 16 wherein the reviewing user may delete, modify or accept the communication.

18. A quality assurance process for text based communications as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 17 wherein a record is kept of review actions and the messages that the review actions relate to.

19. A quality assurance process for text based communications as claimed in claim 17 wherein said record is analysed or analysable to extract one or more of the following indicator statistics for each creating user:

20. A quality assurance process for text based communications as claimed in claim 17 wherein this record is analysed or analysable to extract one or more of the following indicator statistics for each reviewing user:

21. A quality assurance process for text based communications as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 20 wherein messages approved for sending by the creating user are placed in a first queue, said selection process is executed on each message in said first queue, messages determined for immediate sending are placed in an outbound message queue, and messages for review are placed in a message review queue.

22. A quality assurance process for text based communications as claimed in claim 21 wherein a message times out in the review queue the message is transferred to the outbound message queue.

23. A quality assurance process for text based communications as claimed in claim 21 or 22 a message is approved (with or without modifications) the message is transferred to the outbound message queue.

24. A quality assurance process for text based communications as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 23 wherein a message server stores a copy of each communication.

25. A quality assurance process for text based communications as claimed in claim 24 wherein said stored copy is updated if said message is updated in said review process.

26. A quality assurance process for text based communications as claimed in claim 25 wherein said stored copy includes information indicating any changes made in the review process.

27. A quality assurance process for text based communications as claimed any one of claims 1 to 26 wherein the reviewing user is able to store one or more notes in relation to communication, and said notes are associated with said communication in said message server.

28. A system implementing the process claimed in any one of the preceding claims, said process being implemented in software executed on one or more computers.

29. A quality assurance process as hereinbefore described with or without reference to the drawing.

30. A system implementing the quality assurance process as hereinbefore described with or without reference to the drawing.