Thanks so much.
I'm going to share my time with Mr. Housefather, if that's okay.
I have a question for the Auditor General's team.
In exhibit 9 in your report, there is a table where you noted how weight was dispersed across performance for an agency evaluation. Do you remember that one? The table shows that 10% of the evaluation was based on agent behaviour; 45% of the evaluation was based on productivity, which was “call handle time” and “adherence to schedule”—that is important for efficiency, I'll grant you; and the remaining 45% was based on the quality of service.
However, in the explanation immediately afterwards—and it took me a second read to catch this—your report notes that only 9% of the quality of service total was based on accuracy. In the way it was written, “45% was tied to schedule adherence,” while only 9% was “based on accuracy”, when in fact that 9% was part of the broader 45% under “quality of service”.
In your experience, what type of weight should have been placed on the quality of service and the accuracy piece? Rationally, if we're going to boost that number, we have to take it from somewhere else. Would you take it from schedule adherence?
I'm looking for some insight into that, because it was something we talked about a lot in the previous meeting.