Subject: RE: Test Results - India - 28.11.2018 - Second Test
From: Brian Sexton <[email-masked]>
To: Jana Garbe <[email-masked]>, Urvika Chaudhary <[email-masked]>
Cc: David Lee <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 16:09:57 +0000

Hi Jana,

Sorry yes you can publish them.

Kind regards,
Brian

From: Jana Garbe
Sent: Wednesday 28 November 2018 16:04
To: Brian Sexton <[email-masked]>; Urvika Chaudhary <[email-masked]>
Cc: David Lee <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Test Results - India - 28.11.2018 - Second Test

Hi Brian,

Just to confirm, am I good to publish the results?

Jana

From: Brian Sexton
Sent: 28 November 2018 15:12
To: Urvika Chaudhary <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Jana Garbe <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: FW: Test Results - India - 28.11.2018 - Second Test

Hi Urvika,

Please see below the final assessment results for Eduardo and Melisa.

Eduardo failed the second attempt but he passed the first attempt so we'll be doing audits on his cases for the first week to see if he turns out to be a good fit or not.

Melisa has passed so that's good!

Kind regards,
Brian

From: Jana Garbe
Sent: Wednesday 28 November 2018 14:26
To: Brian Sexton <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Robert Cosgrove <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Maiwenn Gouthe <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; David Lee <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Test Results - India - 28.11.2018 - Second Test

Hi all,

Please see below the results of the second assessment:

GEO

Team

Agent

Scenario I

Scenario II

Scenario III

Scenario IV

Total

AVERAGE by agent

India

Training_India

E. Fernandez

6

7

3.5

6.5

23

57.00%

India

Training_India

M. Nunez

8

8

9

4.5

29.5

73.00%

  *   Eduardo was very vague in his investigations and misunderstood Q7 in all scenarios (he answered all questions with "Fan Seller")
     *   Eduardo performed much better in the first assessment and here a clear decrease in performance can be monitored
  *   Melisa performed very well throughout the assessment, with the exception of the RAG process where she did not spot that the buyer was at fault
     *   Melisa increased a lot compared to the first assessment and passed in three of the four scenarios very well

Kind regards,

Jana
From: Jana Garbe
Sent: 22 November 2018 13:12
To: Brian Sexton <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Robert Cosgrove <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Maiwenn Gouthe <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; David Lee <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Test Results - India - 22.11.2018

Hi all,

Please see below the results of this week's training group:

Agent

Scenario I

Scenario II

Scenario III

Scenario IV

Scenario V

Total

AVERAGE by agent

M. Christelle

6

8.5

7.5

7.5

4

33.5

69.00%

E. Fernandez

7.5

8

7.5

6.5

4

33.5

69.00%

M. Nunez

5.5

8.5

4

6.5

5

29.5

61.00%

  *   What was interesting to see is, that all agents (apart from M. Nunez) always wrote almost the same investigations under all Scenarios - however, the content of the cases are different, therefore here the investigations should have been different
  *   All agents did not spot that in Scenario V the agent did not confirm whether he is speaking with the account holder.
  *   M. Christelle: Passed the majority of her assessments, however whenever freetype was required it was very hard to make out the content (ie in the CIANs, Scenario V, Question 7) - I would be a little worried here!
  *   Eduardo Fernandez was slid throughout the scenarios, yet lost points on Scenario V
  *   Melisa Nunez failed three out of 5 assessment. In Scenario V she was very thorough in her tips and observations, yet also did not spot that the agent did not confirm whether she is speaking with the account holder
     *   Scenario III - Agent did not check the listing note and therefore missed that VIP tickets were ordered
     *   Scenario I- Agent offered substitution tickets.

Kind regards,

Jana Garbe
Training & Quality
[viagogo logo]