Performance Improvement • Volume 41 • Number 2 29

More than a decade ago, anarticle in this journaldescribed a methodologyfor building fluent sales

knowledge with results so dramatic thatresponse to the article eventually led toadoption of fluency-based training bysales and marketing organizations innearly a dozen industries (Binder &Bloom, 1989). Newly trained sales repre-sentatives were able to handle complexcustomer scenarios with greater flexibil-ity and confidence than tenured reps whohad not been trained with fluency-basedmethods. Response to the original articlealso led to the creation of a companydevoted exclusively to designing anddelivering performance systems based onthat methodology (Product KnowledgeSystems, Inc.).

Some companies introduced to fluency-based sales knowledge development inthe 1980s and early 1990s continue toapply this model as a standard for newhire and product launch training. Decadesof research and application outside of cor-porate training (Binder, 1993, 1996;Bucklin, Dickinson, & Brethower, 2000)show that the fluency-based approachoffers a new paradigm for performanceimprovement that combines the sensitiv-ity of time-based measurement (Binder,1993, 2001) with a focus on informationergonomics and a systematic methodologyfor designing and implementing efficientpractice activities.

What Is Behavioral Fluency?

Technically, fluency is the combination of accuracy plus speed in responding that comprises competent performance(Binder, 1996). In practical terms, fluencyis correct responding without hesitation,knowing something by heart, or smooth,confident performance (Binder, 1990).Fluency standards are ranges of perfor-mance (count per minute, duration, orpace of correct performance) determinedby a variety of empirical means (Binder,1989) and used as goals in learning or per-formance improvement programs. Morethan 30 years of research and applicationwith a broad range of skills has shownthat achieving these ranges of speed andaccuracy optimizes retention of newlearning, endurance (or resistance to dis-traction), and application (or transfer) ofcomponent behavior to more complexperformance (Binder, 1996; Bucklin,Dickinson, & Brethower, 2000).

Fluency development is a complete system of principles and procedures covering analysis, design, development,implementation, and measurement ofresults (Binder, 1999). Key differences offluency development from more tradi-tional instruction include the following:• Measurement: Fluency-based meth-

ods include the time dimension(count per minute, duration, or pace)in measurement of skills and knowl-edge. Conventional training methodsgenerally use accuracy-only measures,

Building Fluent Performance in aCustomer Call Center

by Carl Binder and Lee Sweeney

30 www.ispi.org • FEBRUARY 2002

which are highly insensitive to differences between expertand non-expert levels of performance.

• Criterion referenced: Fluency-based instruction isalways criterion referenced, requiring learners to achievetime-based fluency standards as they progress throughlearning sequences. Most current training programs insales, customer service, and other areas of corporatedevelopment do not employ a criterion-referencedapproach.

• Information ergonomics: Fluency development stressesthe use of job aids, reference documents, online tools, anduser interfaces that support performance speed and effi-ciency. It aims to replace environmental obstructions tofluent performance (fluency blockers) with performanceenhancers (fluency builders) and provides explicit prac-tice to ensure optimal efficiency in use of tools andresources (Binder, 1990, 1993).

• Analysis and design: Fluency-baseddesigns emphasize identification ofbehavior components that must be flu-ent in order for composite behavior toachieve fluency. Conventional learningdesigns generally stress establishmentof prerequisite sequences of skills andknowledge without attention to com-ponent fluency. This often results indevelopment of behavior chains orsequences in which critical skill andknowledge elements are not fluent.Such nonfluent components can pre-vent learners from achieving fluentapplication (Binder, 1999). By develop-ing component fluency, it is possible tobuild complex and flexible repertoiresfor application and adaptation to newsituations.

• Stages of learning: As shown in Figure1, fluency-based methods generally attempt to mini-mize initial learning (Stage One) using efficient instruc-tion and job aids. They allocate the most time forpractice of critical components (Stage Two) to build astrong foundation that supports easy application (StageThree). Conventional methods often allocate most timeto initial learning, provide minimal practice on compo-nents, and frequently expect most learning to occur inrealistic application exercises and scenarios, whichlearners often find difficult to complete in the absenceof a fluent foundation.

• Implementation: To maximize practice of criticalbehavior components, fluency-based training environ-ments often resemble high-energy learning gyms morethan conventional classrooms. When they involve aself-study component, fluency programs generallyinclude incentives designed to maximize practice timeand reward achievement of fluency. In general, a greatdeal of fluency-based learning activity is arranged in

brief (15 seconds to 2 or 3 minutes) timed practice inter-vals aimed at achieving specific fluency ranges onknowledge or skill components. During the practicephase of fluency-based programs, learners are encour-aged to take responsibility for their own progress ratherthan relying primarily on instructors.

While the specifics differ from one program to another, flu-ency development generally appears much more like ath-letic or performing arts training than traditional academic orcorporate education.

We have all heard that championship athletes spend a greatpercentage of their practice time on fundamentals. In manysports, and in such disciplines as martial arts and dance,both speed and accuracy of form are essential aspects of

mastery. Similarly, it is possible to set expectations and pro-vide practice for speed and accuracy on any job. First, webreak down skills and knowledge into component parts.This is similar to how a basketball player might work onvarious types of shots, fakes, and passes, or a martial artsteacher might arrange practice for kicks, strikes, and blocks.With practice on individual components, and then on com-binations, all the parts begin to blend and leverage eachother seamlessly to achieve peak performance. Step by step,this approach, if measured, fine tuned, and remeasured, willsteadily increase both speed and accuracy in the basic skills.

Customer Care and Field Sales: Parallels andDifferences

Design of fluency programs for customer care representa-tives has benefited from prior applications for sales knowl-edge development. The primary learning objectives for salesrepresentatives generally include being able to ask and

Figure 1. Three Stages of Learning.

answer specific types of questions, speak fluently about var-ious topics, identify and categorize customer needs, linkproduct features to customer needs, and perform other typesof verbal discriminations, expressions, and associations.These are similar to a subset of objectives required for flu-ent customer service. The extraordinary results that weachieved with sales representatives (for example, newtrainees were more proficient than five-year veterans) weredue to fluency practice in which trainees achieved secondnature recall of key knowledge elements required for appli-cation, and the ability to combine those elements into fluentdialogs, descriptions, presentations, and problemsolving.

In addition to the knowledge objectives similar to those forsales, customer service performance generally requires theability to fluently navigate and use online systems to obtainspecific information, and to complete and record detailsfrom customer transactions. This represents another oppor-tunity for building fluency during training to accelerate per-formance ramp-up on the job. In most customer caretraining programs, trainees receive reference manuals oronline resources, knowing they will need to master usingthem during initial weeks on the job. Seldom, however, dothey receive sufficient practice to use these resources flu-ently from the first day at work to locate the right informa-tion quickly, sometimes under duress.

It is important to analyze and design for both system navi-gation itself and use of the information in online systems.Customer service representatives in one company enteredservice and complaint codes into online transaction records.They also read and interpreted those codes when diagnos-ing customer problems over the phone. With approximately100 such codes, most representatives spent time on virtu-ally every call for the first several weeks looking up thecodes in online reference lists to enter or interpret them in

customer records. This activity required a minimum of20–30 minutes per day per representative for the first threeweeks on the job. Simply achieving fluent knowledge ofthese codes prior to beginning the job could eliminate theneed to look them up, adding perhaps two hours per weekto productive time devoted to interaction with customers.Similar or greater potentials for improving productivityramp-up exist in such performance elements as achievingrapid, accurate point-and-click use of customer service soft-ware and internal website pages.

Using Learning Channels to Specify Objectives

Using learning channels to specify objectives was an impor-tant development in early applications of precision teaching(Binder, 1996; Binder & Watkins, 1990; Lindsley, 1997), amethodology that led to the emergence of fluency-basedinstruction. The language of learning channels provides asimple, concrete set of terms that describe the types of inputand output for a given activity. Figure 2 shows learningchannel inputs and typical outputs, plus a few examples. Byattaching learning channels to objectives, we make perfor-mance descriptions completely unambiguous, a necessityfor accurately analyzing performance deficits, preciselydesigning learning materials and procedures, and measur-ing performance during learning. Sample objectives pre-sented in this article include learning channels.

Typical Fluency Development Activities for Customer Care

Figure 3 lists some typical practice activities and fluencystandards for customer care training. While this is not acomplete list, it includes examples from a variety of differ-ent types of customer service training, including servicequality, system navigation, and component knowledgeneeded on the phone.

Performance Improvement • Volume 41 • Number 2 31

Figure 2. Components of Learning Channels.

32 www.ispi.org • FEBRUARY 2002

Notice the range of learning channels related to the types ofperformance required. Also, notice possible trade-offs indesign. For example, using worksheets to practice systemnavigation (see/write) allows more independence for thelearner but imposes a relatively low limit on the pace atwhich the learner can respond. Practicing with a partner(hear•see/say) does not require the learner to take his or hereyes off the screen or to write answers on a sheet, and there-fore moves more quickly.

A Case Study

Background

An early application of fluency-based training methods in acustomer call center occurred at the Los Angeles CellularTelephone Company (now AT&T Wireless). In one businessunit representatives made calls to high-value customers toensure that their service and billing rates were optimal and toaddress any questions or issues that the customers might have.The job description for these retention representatives was ahybrid, combining features of both sales and customer service.

An unusual and particularly advantageous aspect of the sit-uation was that new hire training was developed and delivered

under the direct supervision of the business unit manager,his supervisors, and lead representatives. Unlike more tra-ditional settings, in which a separate training staff deliversclassroom training, in this unit the supervisors and lead rep-resentatives who later managed the newly hired representa-tives actually designed and delivered the training program.This allowed for tighter accountability than is common inmore traditional training settings, as well as a smoothertransition from training to the job.

Revising a Conventional New-Hire Program

After attending a FluencyBuilding™ Workshop, the busi-ness unit manager worked with a team of supervisors to rad-ically revamp their new hire training program, aiming at adesign that would more resemble a basketball coaching pro-gram than classroom education. The team conceptualizedprogram content as falling into one of three concentric cir-cles of a bullseye, as shown in Figure 4. At the core are fun-damental bits of skill and information that must beautomatic, or fluent, for optimal performance on the job. Inthe intermediate circle is information required for perfor-mance that need not be committed to memory as long asrepresentatives can look it up fluently. The outer circle con-tains nice-to-know information previously included in

Figure 3. Typical Fluency Practice Activities for Customer Call Center Training.

training, but judged by the team to be unnecessary for newhires. They completely eliminated the latter from training,expecting that reps would learn it later on the job.

One of the first challenges in a fluency-based approach (asin many performance-based methodologies) is to definewhat is truly crucial for the job. Those are the core areas.The goal here is ensuring that the trainee becomes excellent:proficient, fast, and accurate. This is what any company,trainer, manager, or trainee would desire. However, themore traditional approach often seeks to cover all the infor-mation, despite the result that the trainee will likely beexposed to more than he can retain or will need to surviveduring initial weeks on the job.

After eliminating a substantial amount of content supervi-sors judged to be unnecessary, the team converted core con-tent to practice cards, written exercises, and group hear/saydrills. They redesigned paper job aids and reference tools toallow rapid access and easier scanning while on the phone,in some cases simply by increasing type size to allow read-

ing with peripheral vision. Finally, the team consignedimportant information to look up exercises in whichtrainees practiced finding content until they could do soquickly and confidently.

The approach the team took in revising the training programwas more a rapid application development process than atraditional instructional systems development effort.Supervisors and leads revamped the program on weekendsand evenings over a two-week period, producing a quick-and-dirty revision that continued to change from day to dayduring the first few iterations of the two-week trainingcourse.

A Shift in Time Allocation and Level of Activity

Following recommendations from the FluencyBuilding™Workshop, the team aimed to shift time allocation duringthe program so more than half the time would be spent onfluency practice. Figure 5 summarizes changes in theapproximate amounts of time devoted to different types ofactivities before and after the program revision.

Given these changes, the classroom became noisier, evenboisterous at times, but it was definitely more engaging thanbefore. Part of the philosophy that developed among theprogram delivery team included principles such as the fol-lowing: • Boredom is our enemy.• Participants should be afraid to leave for an unsched-

uled bathroom break because they might miss some-thing.

• If you see participants settling back into their chairsthrow them a curve ball to get them back on the edgesof their seats.

Brief content presentations preceded clusters of exercisesthat shifted from one type of practice and measurementactivity to another, often unpredictably. Trainers, who func-tioned as fluency coaches, set high expectations and main-tained high levels of activity and focus throughout. Figure 6shows the sequence for a typical hour of training. At the endof eight such hours, trainees typically reported that they feltgood rather than bored or fatigued, much as one feels after agood physical workout. To maintain this level of activity for

Performance Improvement • Volume 41 • Number 2 33

Figure 4. The Development Team’s Bull’s-eye Model of CourseContent.

Figure 5. Approximate Percentage of Total Program Time for Each Activity Type.

34 www.ispi.org • FEBRUARY 2002

two weeks requires a carefully defined core curriculum,detailed daily training plans, and rotating coaches to sustainpeak energy.

Setting Expectations

Because a fluency-based program isquite different from a conventionaltraining program, setting expectationsfor participants is extremely important.In this case, the business unit manager,head supervisor, and several lead rep-resentatives were present at trainingsessions and responsible for deliveringthe training. Because they wereinvolved in day-to-day management oftrainees, they were able to set expecta-tions for performance in a manner andwith a degree of credibility that dedi-cated trainer-facilitators often find dif-ficult or impossible to do.

The business unit manager did far morethan deliver the obligatory kick-offmessage: He set the tone from thebeginning, explaining to trainees inclear, simple language how the pro-gram was different and why. A humor-

ous but accurate message in his kick-off presentation was anapology to the trainees that “most of the core informationthat you will see, hear, and say in practice will become like

Figure 6. Typical Sequence of Activities for One Hour of Fluency-Based Training.

Figure 7. Acceleration of Correct Performance During Practice.

riding a bicycle, you will never forget it!” He also describedhow the fast-paced program matched the energy level andbusiness objectives of a call center. The supervisor followedby setting the expectation that trainees would “perform at110%” in training and on the job and by encouraging traineeswho did not feel up to the challenge to discuss with himother possible other job opportunities within the company.Finally, experienced lead representatives served as fluencycoaches, setting high expectations, encouraging, prompting,praising, and generally pushing trainees to achieve their per-sonal best each day during the 10-day program. They workedto make the training challenging, focused, and fun.

Measurement and Feedback

As in sports coaching, measurement and feedback are essen-tial to fluency development. Most fluency-practice exercisesinvolve timed measurement of correct and incorrect perfor-mance as part of each practice session. Consequently, bothlearners and coaches know at every point in the process howeach individual is performing, when they need help or sug-gestions for altering amount or type of practice, or whetherthey need added incentives, prompts, or corrective feedback.

In this case, fluency coaches set daily fluency goals for eachexercise and monitored individual performance againstthose goals. Each time an exercise occurred in the class-room, learners recorded their own performance on record-ing sheets, and coaches often asked them to report theirperformance on prepared flip charts. Coaches arrangedinformal rewards and recognition, various competitivegames, and prizes for achieving personal best performanceor group records. Like a well-coached basketball team inscrimmage, the group responded with energy, drive, andhard work.

Unlike traditional tests that learners often face with fear andanxiety, measurement of performance in fluency exercises isoften an energizer. When trainees can see short-term gainsin performance within a single day, and from day to day,their interest and energy skyrocket. The common fear of tra-ditional trainers, that “all this measurement will just intim-idate people,” always proves wrong after the first few daysin a fluency-based program, because trainees begin to thriveon their own improvement and the challenge to achievehigh aims.

Performance Improvement • Volume 41 • Number 2 35

Figure 8. Ramp-up To and Beyond Benchmark Productivity.

36 www.ispi.org • FEBRUARY 2002

Program Results

Figure 7 shows sample learning data for a group of trainees.Correct performance approximately tripled each week, andall participants eventually were able to perform within flu-ent ranges. Learning and performance on these practicecards fairly reflects levels and learning rates for the remain-der of exercises in the program.

Figure 8 shows average calls per hour for the first group,compared with performance of all other representatives inthe call center for the same period. Fluency-trained repsaccelerated to the call center benchmark within a few daysof training and progressed beyond to an average of 60% (1.6times ) higher than the call center benchmark within abouttwo weeks. This unprecedented ramp-up to and beyond thecall center benchmark level established a new expectationabout what was possible for newly hired representativesimmediately following training.

Figure 9 compares the original and revised training pro-grams with respect to a number of features and highlightssome of the qualitative changes observed during and afterthe program.

Among the unanticipated effects of the fluency-developmentprogram was a shift in responsibility from trainer to traineefor personal improvement. Without being told to do so, manybegan to practice on their own at breaks, before and after reg-ular work hours, and at home. They were highly motivated toachieve and exceed levels demonstrated by others and to con-tinuously attain personal best levels on the exercises.

Traditional lecture-discussion-application training pro-grams produced trainees who seemed familiar with butwere overloaded by a huge amount of information; theirgeneral appearance by the end of the program was often pas-sive, disengaged, and drained. In contrast, those completingthe fluency program seemed engaged and proactive, aggres-sive in their motivation for performance and new learning,and remarkably fast moving in everything they did. Therewas no sense of fatigue or overload, quite the opposite oftrainees who had completed conventional training. Thatenergy and excitement transferred to their first weeks on the

job, where they maintained the same pace, thus excelling atpractically every task, including relatively complex applica-tions and improvisations. For the first time, veteran repre-sentatives were asking new hires where to find certaininformation, and if they (the veterans) were going to beallowed to complete similar refresher training.

The high activity levels and the frequent and loud vocal par-ticipation prompted by choral recall and look-up exercisesdrew out the trainees’ individuality and increased groupcamaraderie, setting the tone for a friendly and enthusiasticmood in the call center and on the phone with customers.Another qualitative observation is that, unlike traditionaltraining where participants are often observed watching theclock, trainees in the fluency program frequently remarkedat how quickly class time seemed to pass.

The revised program was actually shorter than the original,lasting about two weeks rather than three. Thus, anotherresult of the program revision was a higher level of perfor-mance achieved in less time and with lower cost. Thisresult, in particular, caught the attention of other managersin the organization.

Conclusion

Fluency development combines a number of characteristicsof the best performance-oriented training (for example, useof job aids, focus on need to know) with design and imple-mentation features that are quite new for most corporatemanagers and trainers. Not only do fluency-based programschallenge participants and facilitators/coaches to higherlevels of activity and achievement (fluency); they also resultin more rapid ramp-up to performance on the job, oftenenabling new hires to surpass previously established per-formance benchmarks.

The dramatic improvements in learning rates, performancelevels, and program efficiency that fluency-based programsin sales, customer care, and other applications demonstratesuggest a large potential for improving the effectiveness ofeducation, training, and coaching programs. Fluency-devel-opment methods are firmly grounded in more than threedecades of scientific research with broad application in both

Figure 9. Shift in Perspective.

children’s education and adult training and development. Inview of the evidence, managers and performance improve-ment specialists cannot afford to ignore fluency-based meth-ods in any overall performance development strategy.

References

Binder, C. (1989). The FluencyBuilding™ guide and work-shop. Santa Rosa, California: Binder Riha Associates.

Binder, C. (1990, September). Closing the confidence gap.Training, 49-56.

Binder, C. (1993, October). Behavioral fluency: A new par-adigm. Educational Technology, 8-14.

Binder, C. (1996). Behavioral fluency: Evolution of a newparadigm. The Behavior Analyst, 19(2), 163–197.

Binder, C. (1999). Fluency development. In Langdon, D.G.,Whiteside, K.S., & McKenna, M.M. (Eds.), Interventionresource guide (pp. 176-183). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Binder, C. (2001). Measurement: A few important ideas.Performance Improvement, 40(3), 20-28.

Binder, C., & Bloom, C. (1989, February). Fluent productknowledge: Application in the financial services industry.Performance and Instruction, 17-21.

Binder, C., & Watkins, C.L. (1990). Precision teaching anddirect instruction: Measurably superior instructional tech-nology in schools. Performance Improvement Quarterly,3(4), 74-96.

Bucklin, B.R., Dickinson, A.M., & Brethower, D.M. (2000).A comparison of the effects of fluency training and accu-

racy training on application and retention. PerformanceImprovement Quarterly, 13(3), 140-163.

Lindsley, O.R. (1997). Precise instructional design:Guidelines from precision teaching. In C.R. Dills & A.J.Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional development paradigms.Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology.

Dr. Carl Binder is a partner in Binder Riha Associates, a performance con-sulting firm in Santa Rosa, California. He is best known for research in behav-ioral fluency and development of the FluencyBuilding™ training and coachingmethodology, for contributions in knowledge management for sales and mar-keting organizations, performance measurement, and for promotion of effec-tive instructional methods for children. He has consulted with scores ofFortune 1000 and fast-growth organizations, as well as educational andhuman service agencies. A long-time contributor to the International Societyfor Performance Improvement, he has authored several dozen articles andchapters in scientific, educational, professional, and business publications.Carl may be reached at CarlBinder@aol.com, and you can download some ofhis previous publications at www.Binder-Riha.com.

Lee Sweeney is currently a Premier Customer Marketing Call Center Managerfor AT&T Wireless. He has more than 15 years’ experience starting, managing,and directing call centers. In addition to call center applications, he has diverseexperience developing sales, marketing, and service teams. Lee has pioneeredthe implementation of many innovative management, training and employeedevelopment programs that have had a strong positive impact on employeemorale and customer retention. He has extensive training, experience, andknowledge of whole system approaches to process improvement. Lee draws onhis background as a trainer, former high school basketball coach, and Sundayschool teacher to develop a unique training system that stresses core “survival”content, integrates gymnasium style drills, and maintains the fun atmospherewe all remember from our best childhood classrooms.

Performance Improvement • Volume 41 • Number 2 37