Skip to content

Quality

Categories

JUMP TO ANOTHER FORUM

  • Hot ideas
  • Top ideas
  • New ideas
  • My feedback

326 results found

  1. I just need your support regarding the "users to notify" option as I used to select 23 users for each evaluation. if we can make it easier t

    2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Evaluations  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Hi there!

    Thank you for sharing your idea with us! 

    We will thoroughly evaluate it, and if it gains traction, it could greatly impact our roadmap.

    We appreciate your contribution to our community.

    Karina from Product

  2. As an analyst, I want to have access to the option to Skip interactions when a workload is created using multiple filters.

    2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Workloads  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  3. Hi Team,

    This request is related to the scoring mechanism. In our practice, we use a corresponding rating for a range of scores in our current scorecard, and we would like to have Playvox QM detect the rating according to the total points a particular evaluation gets.

    Here we have attached a screenshot showing how the scoring works for us.

    Thanks, please let us know if it makes sense and if you need more clarification.

    2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Acknowleged  ·  0 comments  ·  Scorecards  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  4. We are looking to implement a peer calibration process where analysts evaluate each other's completed evaluations/reviews to assess scoring consistency and alignment with quality standards.

    The process should involve:

    Selection: Choose a completed evaluation for each evaluator.
    Assignment: Assign other team members to evaluate the same case.
    Comparison: Compare the results to identify scoring misalignments across quality standards.

    Currently, this process is manual and requires significant effort to manage and analyze. We request a dedicated feature in Playvox that allows us to:

    Select and assign evaluations for peer review.
    Facilitate the comparison of results among evaluators.
    Identify and address scoring…

    2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  5. The ability to update a Super Admin role directly within the platform without needing to raise a support ticket. This enhancement would allow for quicker and more efficient management of Super Admin roles.

    To ensure security, a check should be implemented to confirm that there is at least one active Super Admin before allowing any changes. This is particularly important when the site owner, who might also be a Super Admin, needs their role updated. Enabling this feature would streamline the process and reduce reliance on support for role management.

    2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Workloads  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Hi there!

    Thank you for sharing your idea with us! 

    We will thoroughly evaluate it, and if it gains traction, it could greatly impact our roadmap.

    We appreciate your contribution to our community.

    Karina from Product

  6. Currently, in the interactions tab and workloads tab within Salesforce, the default reference ID displayed is the Case ID. However, our team primarily uses the Case Number as our reference across all other reporting tools, including Tableau. This mismatch creates additional work on the backend as we have to manually match the Case ID with the Case Number for accurate reporting.

    We are requesting the ability to change the default reference ID from Case ID to Case Number in these tabs. This change would align with our reporting needs, streamline our workflow, and reduce the time spent on manual data…

    2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  7. In the evaluation tab, it would be incredibly useful to have a feature that identifies whether a completed evaluation originated from an assigned workload or from the interaction tab. Currently, there is no clear way to determine where the evaluation was initially triggered, which can lead to confusion and difficulty in tracking the source of evaluations.

    Implementing a feature that tags or highlights the origin of the evaluation—whether it came from a workload or directly from the interaction tab—would enhance clarity and improve the management of evaluations. This would provide evaluators and managers with better insights and allow for more…

    2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Workloads  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Hi there!

    Thank you for sharing your idea with us! 

    We will thoroughly evaluate it, and if it gains traction, it could greatly impact our roadmap.

    We appreciate your contribution to our community.

    Karina from Product

  8. The addition of an additional permission tier that will allow the amalgamation of multiple instances into one. This will allow reporting at an enterprise level, as we do not utilize any of the current reporting because it is site/instance-specific.

    Brief specifications on how we would like the multi-site functionality to work -

    Permission Tier:
    Sits above the current "Team" level, consolidating multiple Teams.
    Users with Group-level access can manage and compare data across all Teams within the Group.

    Consolidated Reporting:
    Enables reporting across different instances/sites, allowing enterprise-level analytics.
    Group-level users can generate reports that compare performance across Teams and instances.

    2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Reports  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Hi there!

    Thank you for sharing your idea with us! 

    We will thoroughly evaluate it, and if it gains traction, it could greatly impact our roadmap.

    We appreciate your contribution to our community.

    Karina from Product

  9. We don't want to show the questions marked with N/A to agents on the Evaluations results page. So there's less noise on the page.

    2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Acknowleged  ·  0 comments  ·  Evaluations  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  10. In the overview report, I'd like to see all agents across all teams and their main KPIs.
    Also, I'd like to export this information, not just from the agents displayed in the graph but the entire list.

    2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Acknowleged  ·  0 comments  ·  Reports  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  11. Have a N/A option in the dispute validity in addition to accept and reject. This option should apply when the dispute had to be nullified since it was a gray area and the dispute wasn't valid for either of the stakeholders involved.

    2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Acknowleged  ·  0 comments  ·  Disputes  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  12. Add skipping option to "Evaluate the Analyst" workloads. Different use-cases where we would like to not include them in the workload.

    2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Acknowleged  ·  0 comments  ·  Workloads  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  13. I know beta reports are being developed and worked on now, but there needs to be the ability for me as an admin to create analyst and other reports customized for metrics displayed for the analyst(s) selected. And then I need to be able to share or send these reports to selected analysts to have it displayed on their dashboards.

    Dashboards needs to be customizable as well for the layout and to remove reports that have no value to that person.

    2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Acknowleged  ·  0 comments  ·  Reports  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  14. Currently if we do have an update (new process, new carrier) we have two options how to edit the scorecard:
    - archive all existing ones make change in one and then clone it and publish it - as a followup we also need to map new scorecard in all of the performance campaigns
    - edit each site scorecard one by one (then we can skip archiving/cloning/publishing/performance campaign mapping parts)

    Both of the options are time consuming (we have several changes a month) and prone to an error. An option to have one main scorecard that would be mirrored to the…

    2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Acknowleged  ·  0 comments  ·  Scorecards  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  15. We are aiming to have one scorecard for all of the areas, when it comes to mistake same action might have one or several mistakes.
    The most efficient way on maintaining the scorecard would be to have an option to give e.g. the score to the question - 30 pts, and minus (never below 0) the points that are added next to the feedback options.
    With such set up we don't need to create many different questions that might not be relevant to all of the evaluations. This setup would also show the severity of the mistake, it's easier to…

    2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Acknowleged  ·  0 comments  ·  Scorecards  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  16. We need to be able to delete comments made in evaluations

    2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Acknowleged  ·  0 comments  ·  Evaluations  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  17. Monthly, the case reason data is necessary for reporting for the following reasons:

    (1) Determine which case reasons are Met and Not Met %.
    (2) Have visibility on the count and types of evaluated case reasons.
    (3) Know the specific areas for improvement by case reasons that our agents needed for a refresher/training, and coaching.

    **The custom field feature in Playvox does not generate the above-mentioned data report we needed. We are looking forward to the generation of this "feature" option so that we can eliminate manual tracking and report data seamlessly and quickly.

    2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Acknowleged  ·  1 comment  ·  Evaluations  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  18. For standalone workload, it's better to have detection of duplicate interaction ID to avoid reductant audit on the same sample.

    2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Acknowleged  ·  1 comment  ·  Workloads  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  19. Reports: present monthly comparative error recurrence across all views, team, agent and scorecard.

    2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Acknowleged  ·  0 comments  ·  Reports  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  20. There is always an error message when editing the time. It needs to have an 6 hour time difference to make any changes to the time of releasing the workload, which is unnecessary.

    Flexibility to edit a workload after it has been started is desired.

    2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Acknowleged  ·  0 comments  ·  Workloads  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  • Don't see your idea?