"When I first started as a quality assurance analyst at Acme Company, a new quality monitoring process was established. In the old process, an analyst would simply go over documentation prepared by frontline customer service representatives. We would score each form against a checklist based on how well they are prepared. Then the checklist would be forwarded to the representatives' superior who would then coach them based on the results. These quality scores became part of the representatives' monthly key performance indicators. Basically, it was a one-way process that ended with coaching and reps felt powerless. So, the representatives requested to have a way to dispute their scores when they felt the QAs were not objective. Management agreed, and so we established a dispute process through which the QAs can re-assess a line item in the checklist based on the rep's justification. The training and quality manager would be the adjudicator.
At first, I felt as if this process would defeat the purpose of quality assurance. However, when the first few disputes came in, I quickly realized how inflexible other analysts could be in their monitoring. It led me to think introspectively and helped me to become even more objective with my own work. I learned to appreciate the dispute process and how well it closed the loop for all parties involved."
