The firm's existing quality assurance process was manual and provided limited, retrospective insight. This created several critical business challenges:
Inadequate Sample Size: Supervisors could only manually review a small fraction (less than 2%) of all calls. This meant that insights were based on an incomplete picture and high-risk interactions were frequently missed.
Subjective and Inconsistent Feedback: Manual call scoring was prone to human bias. One manager's assessment of a call's tone could differ significantly from another's, leading to inconsistent agent feedback and training.
No Predictive Capability: The manual reviews were backward-looking, focusing on agent script adherence rather than future outcomes. The firm had no reliable, data-driven method to forecast which customers were at the highest risk of defaulting based on their call interactions.
Reactive Strategy: Without early warning signs, the firm was stuck in a reactive cycle. Resources were allocated based on account age rather than the actual, immediate risk of non-payment, leading to inefficient recovery efforts.