Call Sign November 2007 - Page 13

Signal problems
When I first read Darren’s letter, I was somewhat surprised to read that if a Board member responds to a letter it is perceived to be a slanging match between Board and the fleet. While signals are nowhere near the standard we would all like to have, we must look at the possible reasons why situations occur in the way that Darren describes.
   It’s been written about time and time again that the only reason for signals being inaccurate is because of the number of packets of messages going backwards and forwards between the fleet and the host computer. While Darren has been offered his trip, the reason he is booked off is because his accept signal has not reached the host.
   The system is programmed that if it receives no signal back, it is then to book the driver off. On some occasions, trips appear on the driver’s screen but the connect message from the terminal has not been received, leaving the host computer to believe the trip has not been offered. Darren, like all drivers, is not aware of the whole picture and I can only agree - why should he be? While trips are being offered, what goes on in the background is the majority of other offers are being rejected.
   It has been written and spoken about on numerous occasions; if more drivers were to accept rather than reject, this would reduce the packets of messaging and improve the signals.
   With the busy period soon to be upon us, I have been looking at back-up zones in the central areas. One trip can be rejected by anything up to 20/30 drivers in its primary zone. When it passes to the back-up zone, it can then be rejected by a further 30/40 drivers, which equates to just one trip having up to 70 rejects. The reason for the reject is not in question as drivers in the primary zone will have a different reason to those in the back-ups. If we have just 10 trips firing out in one zone and all are rejected by the drivers in the primary and back up zones, we are now looking at 700 rejects. If you look further, each reject then causes another packet of information being sent to another driver, so the total number of terminal transactions is 1400. For every message sent one way, one is sent in return. When there are some 90 trips unmatched at times, can you even begin to imagine how many packets of information have been sent backwards and forwards?
   What is extremely frustrating to the Call Centre controllers is they now have a good eye for what trips will be taken and which trips won’t.
   I have been looking at is the number of back-up zones that are allocated to a zone and I believe it is a total waste of airspace to send trips as back-ups when we know full well they will never be taken. For example, if a driver is booked into NW1W and is north of Regents Park, he/she can be offered a trip in W1SW. I think we all know that if the trip in W1SW is picking up around the Hilton Hotel and going to Chelsea, the driver is not going to run all that distance to cover the trip. Therefore, by removing certain back-up zones

Keith Cain responds to Darren Hawley’s (A80) letter from this issue’s Mailshot…

CALL CENTRE CHAT

and allowing the trips to go into
BIDs much quicker, drivers who wish to run for the work will do so
by Bidding. Let me add that we have not touched the outer zones, so there is no need to worry about the ‘going home’ facility being altered.
I’m confident that by reducing the number of packets of information, then the accuracy of the signals should improve. Couple this with the removal of the voice channel, which introduces two more data channels to spread the load, it must assist in improving our problems. One of the new data channels is up and running at the Park Lane Hilton, with the second planned for January and its positioning close to Heathrow Airport. The whole DaC fleet will need to make a visit to Roman Way to have their radios tuned to receive the new channels. I am advised that it only takes 15/20 minutes and those who already have had the upgrade are reporting an improvement with their signals.

Incorrect Information?
I have looked into Darren’s other comment about incorrect information being given to drivers. My initial reaction was to think that we had another very serious problem, however, the two trips in question have been isolated incidences compared to the number of trips Darren has undertaken between the two dates of each trip. Darren asks for the name and extension number to be always taken, but unfortunately, if the caller does not wish to – or can’t - give us this information, then telephonists have been instructed to put down what they are given without becoming involved in an argument.
While I accept that the driver message says what your instructions are, the telephonist does not see this. They have their own instructions, which do not always match yours. The client who sets up the account is not necessarily the person travelling and with the best will in the world, we often find ourselves being in the middle. The primary cause for much of this is the use of the mobile phone, which is the contact number given instead of an extension.
Darren remarked about names; when we can, you will notice we put the surname first followed by Christian name or initial and a title if we can get one. We do this so that it is easier to recall trips on surname. When picking up ‘Kate’

from Pall Mall, the caller was
asked by the CSR for her full name and contact number only to be told: "Just put down Kate, I will be waiting for the driver."
   The reason Darren was later given an extension number was that the controller had time to recall previous trips on that account number to see whether Kate had used us before. Sure enough she had and on that occasion had supplied us with an extension number that was then passed on.
   That is not to say the staff are always right, of course there are occasions when they get it wrong. If you recall, I did inform DaC members through Call Sign that we had increased our complement of call centre staff by 70 and I said then that you might receive some errors that I would like you all to make allowances for. However, the trip picking up from Queenstown Road was an error because the CSR had selected Battersea Park Station instead of Battersea Park. Both addresses are next to each other on our street data base and the wrong address was selected. However, just to confuse the CSR, the client also gave Sun Gate and Queenstown Road as the pick-up addresses. I say it again; CSR’s are human and like us all will make an occasional error. Those that make errors constantly do not work for us for very long, but the individual who makes one out of 200 calls taken, must have allowances made to them.
   The point I’m making to Darren and other members is to think of the wider picture. Some 7,000/8,000 trips a day are dispatched through the system. If they were all incorrect, then we would have serious problems, but fortunately this is not the case. However, don’t think that every piece of incorrect information is the cause of our staff. Clients can be very frustrating too, as we all know. What we are experiencing more of lately are the number of mistakes made by clients when booking via our on-line facility. We do try to monitor these trips and often controllers catch them and make alterations, however some do get through.
   Our procedure of taking bookings from clients has not changed to that extent from when the Society first began. We are aware of the difficulty and inconvenience it causes drivers when details are not as we would like. Not always is it the staff that are to blame, but they do carry out their jobs to a very high standard and are trained by DaC’s in-house trainers to a level that no other circuit has.
   Darren I have taken the time to explain in depth the situations and problems we have and I sincerely hope you find it informative rather than part of a slanging match…

Keith Cain
Call Centre Manager
Driver Operations Manager

Call Sign Home Page

Page 14