Show that the response is fair. Establish whether the cause has changed.
Intelligence earns its place when it improves the decision and the customer's outcome. We assess the intervention chosen, fair resolution and evidence that the underlying cause changed.
Measure handling and prevention separately.
A complaint can be resolved well while its cause continues to affect others. Recorded complaints can also rise when recognition improves. We assess fair handling and prevention separately, with stable definitions and the exposed customer population.
Connected history, conversations and business records inform predictions of escalation and likely response. We check whether those signals led to a useful action, at an appropriate time and through the right channel. Prediction quality alone cannot establish the value of intervention.
Give every number a question to answer.
| Measure | Definition and interpretation |
|---|---|
| Handling quality | Review evidence, judgement and explanation across digital and human handling. Include expert guidance, the use of intelligence and adherence to applicable requirements. |
| Time to resolution | Measure from the agreed starting event to completed resolution. Show the distribution, aged cases and reasons for delay so an average cannot conceal difficult cases. |
| Reopened and repeated issues | Count cases or contacts returning about the same unresolved concern within an agreed period. Keep recognition and linking rules consistent. |
| Recurrence of a cause | Track related incidents against the customers, accounts or transactions exposed to that cause. Assess whether the rate changes after the fix. |
| Completed commitments | Check whether the promised remedy or next action occurred, including work carried out by another team after the response was sent. |
| Full economic effect | Include digital delivery, expert consultation, specialist handling, rework, remediation and improvement. Distinguish reduced activity, usable capacity and cash that can actually be released. |
Compare a change with a credible alternative.
Record the starting position.
We define the issue, eligible population, recognition rules, case mix and starting performance. Comparisons account for initial risk, seasonal events and other changes that could affect the result.
Choose a fair comparison.
Where suitable, we compare a phased process change across comparable groups or periods. All customers retain appropriate handling and access to help. We state the limitations of a simple before-and-after view.
Track the change itself.
We record when the fix was approved, when it became operational and which customers it could affect. We analyse the relevant period after implementation, with enough time for the problem to recur.
A smaller count can still describe a larger problem.
Suppose complaints about a letter fall from 50 to 40 while the number of customers receiving it falls from 10,000 to 5,000. The count is lower, but the rate has risen from five to eight complaints per thousand recipients.
The example shows why the exposed population matters. It does not establish the letter's cause or an intervention's effect. Review the letter, customer circumstances, recognition practices and comparable evidence before deciding what the result means.
Follow the decision through the whole case.
The review connects the intelligence, chosen action and outcome. For digital voice and other channels, it distinguishes expert consultation while the agent keeps the conversation from a transfer to a specialist. We check the context received and how continuing assistance supported human judgement.
Completed commitments, cause owners and implementation remain visible. Outcomes and expert corrections improve knowledge, predictions and future responses. Outcome fees use agreed attributable value and customer safeguards. A lower compensation total alone is not evidence of better service.
End the review with a decision.
| Decision | What would support it |
|---|---|
| Extend | The service meets its quality requirements, the change is operating reliably and the evidence supports a worthwhile effect. |
| Adjust | The cause remains plausible but the intervention, delivery or measurement needs improvement. Agree the change and what the next review must establish. |
| Pause or stop | The service creates unacceptable treatment issues, the change cannot be delivered or the expected value does not justify the full cost. |
Choose a recurring problem worth investigating.
Bring the evidence you already have and the decision you need to make. We agree a proportionate way to assess the opportunity.