The customer sent a request at 9:00 a.m., by 9:05 a.m. the team responded, but it took 3 days for the request to be resolved. Do guests feel "taken care of"? Yes. But they are still upset because they waited so long. This story shows that just tracking one indicator is not enough. So what is the difference between FRT and resolution time, which is more important, and how to use both to improve customer service quality?
FRT (or First Response Time) is the time from the time a customer sends a request to the first response team, used to measure response speed. Resolution time is the time from receipt to completion of the problem, used to measure completion efficiency. There is no one that is absolutely "more important": FRT determines the customer's initial feeling (whether they are taken care of), and resolution time decides whether the customer will return or not. A good business is one that monitors both and knows which one is the weak point. Also according to Zenify data, businesses that track these pairs of indicators reduce response time by up to 34%.
TL;DR
- FRT = how long to first response (reaction rate).
- Resolution time = how long it takes to resolve (complete effect).
- FRT determines the feeling of "being cared for"; resolution decided to come back.
- Comparing which one is worse, give priority to improving that one.
- Good = both are good; FRT is fast but resolution takes a long time, customers are still upset.
What is the difference between FRT and resolution time?
Criteria | FRT (First Response Time) | Resolution Time
What to measure | First Response Time | Resolution time
Answer questions | "How long does the customer wait for a response?" | "How long do customers have to wait for it to be done?"
Influence | Feeling cared for | Decided to return
Depends | Number of people on duty, speed of closing information | Capacity, process, complexity
Specific example: customer asked for warranty at 9am. The team responded at 9:05 a.m., FRT = 5 minutes is very good, but it takes 3 days to complete the process, resolution = 3 days is bad. The customer felt "cared for" but was still upset because it took so long to complete.
Why must we monitor both?
Tracking just one metric will fool you:
According to FRT only: The team responded quickly "according to routine" but did not resolve the issue. FRT is beautiful but customers are still bored.
According to resolution only: The team quickly finishes handling a few "easy" tickets, while the difficult ones wait tirelessly. Average numbers mask the real problem.
These two metrics measure two different stages of the customer journey, if you miss one, you're blind to that area.
Which one should improve first?
Simple rule: whatever is worse than the standard, do that first.
Measure both for 2 weeks with real data.
Compared to goals:
- Small team target FRT: <15 minutes of office hours.
- Resolution target: according to request type (inquiries <2 hours, technical <3 days...).
Improve what is slipping more.
When FRT is bad, the problem lies in the online and reception stages: you need to add more people on duty, collect channels or use chatbots for basic questions (see Multi-channel inbox collection).
When resolution is bad, the problem is capacity and process: you need to assign the right skills, build a knowledge base and have a clear escalation process (see Smart ticket assignment).
Additional indicators should be monitored
Besides the two main indicators, you should track the following three indicators to get a more complete picture:
First time resolution rate (FCR): Percentage of tickets that are completed the first time without being passed on.
Average ticket age: measures how long it takes for a ticket to actually end.
% achieved SLA: what percentage of tickets are within the commitment.
These three indicators along with FRT and resolution time will give you an overall view of the customer care department (see Helpdesk report should be viewed weekly).