Introduction
The Vitesse Customer Support Quality Framework exists to ensure that our clients tickets are handled with careful decision-making and ownership. In order to ensure we deliver a high standard of service to our platform users and protect relationships as well as Vitesse's reputation.
The Quality Framework forms part of the Customer Support Team Key measurables for individual performance and is a key part of the role.
Process overview
| Parameter | Definition | Score weighting | Scoring options | Scoring guidance | |
| 1 | Complete Response | All questions, requests, or concerns raised by the requestor were acknowledged and either fully answered or clearly addressed with next steps or signposting. | 10% | Yes - 100% of parameter weight. Partial - 50% of parameter weight. No - 0% of parameter weight | Yes - All questions/points acknowledged and answered or clearly signposted with next steps. Partial - Main issue answered but secondary questions missed or vaguely addressed. No - One or more key questions ignored or misunderstood |
| 2 | Ownership of Resolution | The exec took appropriate action to progress the issue toward resolution, followed through where required, and clearly communicated outcomes or next steps to the requestor. | 15% | Yes - 100% of parameter weight. Partial - 50% of parameter weight. No - 0% of parameter weight | Yes - Clear ownership shown, proactive follow-up, confirms outcome or next steps. Partial - Action taken but little follow-through or unclear next steps. No - Passed issue on with no ownership, customer left chasing |
| 3 | Security & Access Validation | The exec verified the requester’s identity, registration status, and level of authority where required before taking action or sharing account-specific information. | 15% | Yes - 100% of parameter weight. Partial - 50% of parameter weight. No - 0% of parameter weight | Yes - Correct checks completed before action/information shared. Partial - Checks done but not clearly evidenced or minor step missed with no risk created. No - Required validation not completed (may also trigger critical error). |
| 4 | First Response SLA Met | The first public response was sent within the applicable SLA timeframe (e.g. <4 or <8 business hours). | 10% | Yes - 100% of parameter weight. Partial - 50% of parameter weight. No - 0% of parameter weight | Yes - Within SLA. Partial - Slightly outside SLA but reasonable context documented. No - Missed SLA with no justification or mitigation. |
| 5 | Effective First Response | The initial response set clear expectations, included relevant information, and was appropriately tailored to the requestor’s situation (macros used and customised where needed). | 10% | Yes - 100% of parameter weight. Partial - 50% of parameter weight. No - 0% of parameter weight | Yes - Clear expectations, helpful info, tailored to situation. Partial - Generic response with limited tailoring or missing expectation setting. No - Confusing, incomplete, or fails to guide customer |
| 6 | Proactive Delay Management | Where timelines changed or were exceeded, the exec proactively informed the requestor, acknowledged the delay, apologised where appropriate, and provided a revised timeframe. | 5% | Yes - 100% of parameter weight. Partial - 50% of parameter weight. No - 0% of parameter weight | Yes - Delay acknowledged early with apology & new ETA. Partial - Delay addressed but late or without clear new timeframe. No - Customer had to chase for updates. |
| 7 | Value-Adding Guidance | The exec shared relevant resources, self-service guidance, or preventative information that could help the requestor now or in future, where appropriate. | 5% | Yes - 100% of parameter weight. Partial - 50% of parameter weight. No - 0% of parameter weight | Yes - Relevant helpful resources shared appropriately. Partial - Resource shared but limited relevance or context. No - Missed opportunity to guide or educate. |
| 8 | Effective Use of Tools & Macros | The exec used available tools, macros, and internal resources appropriately to ensure accuracy, consistency, and efficiency, adapting them where necessary for clarity and context. | 5% | Yes - 100% of parameter weight. Partial - 50% of parameter weight. No - 0% of parameter weight | Yes - Macros/tools used correctly and adapted well. Partial - Macro used but poorly tailored or minor inaccuracy. No - Didn’t use available tools leading to errors, inconsistency, or inefficiency |
| 9 | Tone & Audience Awareness | Communication was clear, professional, and aligned with Vitesse’s tone of voice, while being adapted to the requestor’s level of technical understanding. | 10% | Yes - 100% of parameter weight. Partial - 50% of parameter weight. No - 0% of parameter weight | Yes - Professional, clear, appropriate for audience knowledge level. Partial - Generally fine but slightly too technical/blunt/wordy. No - Jargon-heavy, dismissive, overly casual, or confusing. |
| 10 | Written Communication Quality | Messages were free from significant spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors that could reduce clarity or professionalism. | 5% | Yes - 100% of parameter weight. Partial - 50% of parameter weight. No - 0% of parameter weight | Yes - No noticeable spelling/grammar issues. Partial - Minor errors that don’t affect clarity. No - Errors that reduce clarity or professionalism. |
| 11 | Commercial & Relationship Awareness | The exec recognised when a ticket had potential commercial, reputational, or relationship impact and took appropriate action beyond basic resolution (e.g. involving a CSM, highlighting customer impact or risk, adding meaningful context, or flagging trends/issues internally). | 10% | Yes - 100% of parameter weight. Partial - 50% of parameter weight. No - 0% of parameter weight | Yes - Recognised broader impact and acted (Success Manager looped in, risk flagged, context added). Partial - Some awareness shown but action limited or unclear. No - Treated high-impact issue as routine with no broader thinking. |
| A | Critical Risk/Compliance error | Acted on instruction from unauthorised user. Failed to follow required verification process. Caused financial movement error. Shared sensitive information incorrectly. | Overwrites score to 0 | Yes = overwrites scoring to a 0 | Yes or No. One critical error will nullify the scoring of the audit to 0% |
| B | Critical Service Judgement error | Failed to escalate a high-risk or high-impact issue. Passed on internal response without understanding/context. Ignored clear signs of customer dissatisfaction or complaint risk. | Overwrites score to 0 | Yes = overwrites scoring to a 0 | Yes or No. One critical error will nullify the scoring of the audit to 0% |
| C | Non-critical error | Errors that did not create customer risk or compliance issues but caused inefficiency, delay, or reduced clarity. | -5% per error | Yes = -5% off total score per error | Yes or No. Deduct 5% from total score per error |