I agree with the other replies, but still wonder why you’d focus on AHT. As previously indicated, it can be influenced by so many factors, which in and of themselves are difficult to measure.
In my experience, AHT is a better metric for staffing, but not for performance. FCR seems to be the best for performance measurement. For example, if a customer calls twice about a single issue and spends 60 sec per call, then the AHT looks good at 60 sec. But the customer may be upset for having to call a 2nd time. Had it been resolved correctly the first time, the call may have been 90 sec. – Higher AHT, but better FCR, customer sat, and lower costs by reducing the overall call volume.
In fact, I believe AHT is not only misleading, but can be dangerous if it’s used to measure performance. Making call agents accountable to an AHT standard encourages bad behavior like transfers, hang-ups, and not fully resolving their issue. AHT is easier to measure on every call so it generally considers population data; however, FCR is usually only on sample data so the risk is in the agent’s favor to not resolve the call since it will have more impact on improving their AHT then it will on hurting their FCR.
Finally, every repeat call for an unresolved issue requires standard info like routing thru the IVR, authentication, etc. However, I believe if we spend just a little more time resolving their issue properly on the first call (which increases AHT), you’re avoiding those repeat processes (like authentication) and will increase your FCR, reduce your call volume, and ultimately reduce your agent staffing (which AHT was designed to help measure anyway).
.
