| Area | Requirement | Yes/No | Short description |
| QA Evaluation | Customisable QA forms with weighted scoring | Yes | Custom, multi-criteria scorecards with configurable questions, categories, and weightings are supported. |
| QA Evaluation | Multi-category evaluations (accuracy, processes, compliance, soft skills, behaviour) | Yes | Multiple categories and criteria (e.g. empathy, policy adherence, accuracy) can be defined and grouped per scorecard. |
| QA Evaluation | Audit trail for every edit and evaluation | Yes* | QA reviews and score changes are recorded, but granularity and reporting of audit history may require using Zendesk reporting exports for full traceability. |
| QA Evaluation | Link QA to specific tickets, calls, cases, and claims | Yes | Evaluations are anchored on Zendesk conversations; each QA result ties back to the original ticket or call record. |
| AI Capabilities | AI-assisted scoring recommendations | Yes | AutoQA uses AI to score interactions and surface suggested quality scores per conversation based on predetermined or created categories (Empathy, Spelling/Grammar and/or "Queries about Dischem" etc) |
| AI Capabilities | Sentiment analysis across interactions | Yes | AI models detect tone and sentiment signals in customer and agent messages across channels. |
| AI Capabilities | Automatic trend detection and risk identification | Yes | AI highlights patterns like churn risk, escalations, or policy issues and surfaces “spotlights” on risky conversations. |
| AI Capabilities | Predictive flags for repeat issues or compliance failures | Yes* | Conversations with risk signals or recurring issues can be flagged and routed; more advanced predictive models may rely on combining QA with Zendesk reporting and workflows. |
| Coaching Workflow | Automated creation of coaching tasks from QA results | No | These are created manually by the assessor/coach based on surfaced stats. |
| Coaching Workflow | Track coaching completion and effectiveness | Partial | Completion tracking can be handled via tickets, views, and dashboards; effectiveness tracking relies on linking QA scores and performance metrics in reporting. |
| Coaching Workflow | Agent self-assessment and call playback | Yes* | Agents can view their QA results and examples; voice QA uses call transcripts and recordings for review, with playback supported where telephony/recordings are integrated. |
| Coaching Workflow | Integrated feedback acknowledgement workflow | Partial | Agents can see feedback and comments; acknowledgement flows can be implemented using ticket-based processes, macros, and status fields rather than a dedicated “sign-off” object. |
| Dashboards & Reporting | Custom dashboards for QA, TL, Ops, Executive | Yes* | Zendesk QA and Explore provide configurable dashboards and filters by agent, team, category, and time; tailoring per audience is achieved through separate dashboards and permissions. |
| Dashboards & Reporting | Real-time reporting on trends, compliance, service failures | Yes* | Near real-time quality and trend insights are available; some aggregates may refresh on a schedule depending on the reporting component. |
| Dashboards & Reporting | Exportable reports linked to ISO quality objectives | Yes* | QA and Explore data can be exported for external reporting and mapped to ISO objectives via your own templates and documentation. |
| Dashboards & Reporting | Drill-down to root-cause level | Yes* | Dashboards let you drill from overall scores to categories, agents, and specific conversations; deeper RCA still requires analyst interpretation and tags/fields. |
| Calibration | Set up and manage calibration sessions | Partial | Calibration can be modeled using dedicated scorecards, views, and workflows, but there is no separate “calibration session” object today. |
| Calibration | Variance reporting per evaluator | Partial | Differences between evaluators can be analyzed using filtered views by user/evaluator in QA data and exports. |
| Calibration | Historical calibration tracking | Partial | History of evaluations can be stored and reported on; structured calibration history will depend on how sessions are modeled in tickets/fields. |
| User Experience | Simple, intuitive interface | Yes | QA is embedded in the Zendesk workspace with a modern, streamlined UI designed for CX teams. |
| User Experience | Custom roles and permissions (incl. form-edit restrictions) | Yes* | Zendesk roles and QA-specific permissions control who can create scorecards, edit evaluations, and access views, though granularity may follow overall role structures. |
| User Experience | User-friendly layouts for agents and TLs | Yes | Agent workspace and QA views are optimized for quick review, scoring, and follow-up actions with minimal context switching. |
| User Experience | Minimal clicks to complete a review | Yes* | AutoQA plus focused QA views reduce manual effort, but exact click count depends on your chosen workflow and customizations. |
| Integration & Automation | Integration with CRM, telephony, L&D, SharePoint | Yes* | Native telephony and app integrations are available; CRM/L&D/SharePoint can integrate via Zendesk apps, APIs, and third-party connectors, not all out-of-the-box. |
| Integration & Automation | No manual downloading/uploading of calls/emails/cases | Yes* | When telephony and systems are integrated, QA works directly on tickets and call records without manual file handling; gaps may exist for legacy or non-integrated systems. |
| Integration & Automation | Improved data accuracy and single source of truth | Partial | Zendesk can serve as the primary interaction hub; true single source of truth depends on broader enterprise data architecture and integrations. |
| Integration & Automation | Seamless coaching and learning assignment links | Partial | Links and triggers can be set up from QA outputs into L&D or LMS tools via URLs, apps, or API automations, but not all LMS platforms have native connectors. |
| Integration & Automation | Automated evidence availability for ISO audits | Partial | QA records, exports, and audit trails support evidence; full ISO alignment still requires defined QMS processes and documentation outside the tool. |
| Integration & Automation | Workflow triggers (high-risk interactions, repeat callers, high-risk claims) | Yes* | QA insights can trigger workflows, routing, and notifications when conversations meet risk criteria, using Zendesk automation and routing features. |
| Integration & Automation | Automated, rule-based sampling of interactions | Partial | Zendesk QA emphasizes scoring 100% of interactions and then filtering; traditional percentage-based sampling can be approximated via filters, but matrix-driven sampling by driver/risk may require custom logic in reporting rather than native sampling rules. |
| Multichannel QA | Calls, email, chat, social, claims, membership, digital | Yes* | QA supports email, messaging, chat, and voice; “claims” and “membership” can be modeled as ticket types with appropriate fields within those channels. |
| Compliance & ISO | Version control for QA forms | Yes* | Scorecards can be updated or duplicated over time; versioning discipline (naming, dates, active/inactive status) is managed via configuration and process rather than strict document control tooling. |
| Compliance & ISO | Secure data retention and access logs | Yes* | Zendesk platform security, role-based access, and logging support controlled access; detailed retention policies depend on your Zendesk plan and admin settings. |
| Compliance & ISO | Ability to record non-conformances | Partial | Non-conformances can be logged as tickets with custom fields, linked to QA results and categories; there is no dedicated ISO non-conformance module. |
| Compliance & ISO | Evidence storage for audit purposes | Yes* | Tickets, QA evaluations, attachments, and exports act as evidence; long-term archival policies may need alignment with your QMS and data-retention rules. |
| Feedback & Improvement | Action plan creation and tracking | Partial | Action plans can be implemented as tickets or tasks linked to QA results, with statuses and owners tracked through standard workflows. |
| Feedback & Improvement | Root cause analysis support | Partial | QA categories, tags, and reporting help identify themes; structured RCA still relies on analyst methods and any external RCA templates. |
| Feedback & Improvement | Verification of action-plan effectiveness | Partial | Subsequent QA scores and KPI trends can be tracked to validate improvements, but verification logic is designed in your reporting rather than automated judgement. |
| Feedback & Improvement | Trend escalation to relevant service teams | Yes* | Trends and risk flags can drive automated routing/escalations to specific teams via triggers, views, and notifications. |
Comments
0 comments
Article is closed for comments.