john.pagurayan@concentrix.com — Coaching Report
Week of 2026-05-25 – 2026-05-31
At a Glance
| Calls Handled | Avg Handle Time | Top Product | Top Problem | Cases Documented | Cases Escalated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 53m 44s | MX6200 | CONNECTIVITY | 3 | — |
Work Mix Lens
- Frontline-heavy week: 3 LTS queue calls vs 0 TE-owned calls.
- Coach as a frontline agent: emphasize safe troubleshooting branches, closure hygiene, and clear customer-facing next steps.
Scorecard
| Dimension | This Week | Calls Reviewed |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | 3.00 | 3 |
| Protocol | 1.67 | 3 |
| Communication | 2.67 | 3 |
| Overall | 2.63 | 3 |
Where Time Goes
Product Families
| Family | Calls | Avg Handle Time | Avg Overall | Avg Accuracy | Avg Protocol | Avg Communication | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MX | 1 | 110m 35s | 3.00 | 3.00 | 1.00 | 3.00 | Outlier: 2.5x weekly median handle time |
| MR | 1 | 44m 18s | 3.40 | 4.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | |
| EA | 1 | 6m 18s | 1.50 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 2.00 |
Key Observations
- MX is the slowest family at 110m 35s; outlier: 2.5x weekly median handle time.
- MR is one of the slowest families at 44m 18s.
Problem Categories
| Category | Calls | Avg Handle Time | Avg Overall | Avg Accuracy | Avg Protocol | Avg Communication | Focus Area? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACCESS | 1 | 6m 18s | 1.50 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 2.00 | ✓ |
| CONNECTIVITY | 2 | 77m 26s | 3.20 | 3.50 | 2.00 | 3.00 |
Week-over-Week Movement
- Overall moved up 0.66 vs. last week.
- Accuracy moved up 1.33 vs. last week.
- Communication moved up 0.67 vs. last week.
- Average handle time moved up by 12m 23s.
What Went Well
- Effective troubleshooting steps
> Performed sequential power-cycle of modem then router, which resolved the issue.
- Customer empathy and communication
> Showed genuine empathy regarding the customer's limited income and health situation, de-escalating tension.
Growth Opportunities
- Premature escalation to paid support
> Introduced paid support before attempting any troubleshooting, creating unnecessary friction with a vulnerable customer.
Next step: Always attempt at least one basic troubleshooting step (e.g., power-cycle, cable check) before mentioning paid support options.
- Incomplete troubleshooting and closure
> Failed to collect product model number, incorrectly declared the device out of warranty without verification, and prematurely pushed paid support without performing basic triage.
Next step: Always collect the product model and serial number upfront, verify warranty status using the serial number, and follow the standard troubleshooting flow before suggesting paid support.
Next Week's Focus
- Collect product details upfront: Always ask for and record the product model and serial number at the beginning of the call.
- Verify warranty status: Use the serial number to check warranty status before stating the device is out of warranty.
- Attempt basic troubleshooting first: Perform at least one basic troubleshooting step (e.g., power-cycle, cable check) before mentioning paid support options.
- Use approved remote tools: If remote access is needed, use only approved Linksys remote tools and follow KB-guided troubleshooting paths.
Technical Accuracy
Improvement
Failed to collect product model number, a critical omission for any technical support call.
Improvement
Incorrectly declared device out of warranty without verification and stated no technical help could be provided, contradicting policy.
Improvement
Used non-standard remote access (Zoho) instead of approved Linksys remote tools.
Improvement
Introduced paid support before attempting any troubleshooting, creating unnecessary friction.
Coaching Moments
No additional coaching moments were extracted after the technical review.
Escalation Lessons: What L2 Did
No escalated case learning was available for this report.
Coach Appendix
- The highest-signal weekly trend is the premature escalation to paid support and incomplete troubleshooting on the EA6350 ACCESS call. This pattern suggests a need to reinforce the importance of collecting product details, verifying warranty status, and following the standard troubleshooting flow before suggesting paid support options.
- A recurring technical pattern is the use of non-approved remote tools and failure to collect critical product information, which contributed to inefficiency and potential security risks.
- These patterns should inform the next coaching conversation, focusing on protocol adherence, warranty verification, and the use of approved remote tools.
This Week's Calls
| Case | Date | Score | Direction | Product | Category | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #LTS00113870 | 2026-05-26 14:59:04+00:00 | 1.50 | INBOUND | EA6350 | ACCESS | Agent promised to email setup instructions, but no instructions were provided during the call and customer remained unable to access the router. |
| #LTS00131145 | 2026-05-28 01:26:42+00:00 | 3.40 | INBOUND | MR7350 | CONNECTIVITY | Router restored to solid blue; TV internet working. Customer advised to repeat power-cycle if issue recurs. |
| #LTS00073069 | 2026-05-29 01:03:17+00:00 | 3.00 | INBOUND | MX6200 | CONNECTIVITY | Nodes are back online but downstairs node signal is weak; advise moving it closer to the parent or to a more open spot and re‑check signal. |