A conversation that changes owner twice is not twice as expensive as one that changes owner once. It is worse than that, and nearly all of the damage happens in the gaps between owners rather than in the work itself.
Where the 41 minutes go
Across one quarter at a 30-agent team, conversations with no handoff resolved in a median 52 minutes. One handoff took that to 78. Two handoffs took it to 93, and the third owner spent under 10 minutes on the ticket. The remainder was queue time: the conversation sitting unowned while the person who reassigned it had already moved on and the person receiving it had not yet seen it. Handoffs do not cost work. They cost waiting.
The second handoff is the one to hunt
One handoff is often correct. The first agent triaged, and the question really does belong with billing. A second handoff almost always means the first one was a guess. Pull every conversation reassigned two or more times last month and read the first reassignment note on each. A pattern usually shows up inside 20 tickets: one product area nobody feels confident about, or a routing rule sending anything with the word invoice to the wrong queue.
Make the handoff carry something
A reassignment with no note is a reassignment that will happen again. Require one line, and be specific about what the line is for: what the sending agent has already ruled out. Not what the problem is, since the thread already says that. What has been checked, so the next person does not check it twice. Ines Ferreira made this mandatory on a 30-agent team and watched reassignment volume fall on its own, because writing the line forces the question of whether the handoff is needed at all.
Count it, even roughly
Handoff rate belongs on the same board as response time. If 18 percent of conversations change owner and 5 percent change owner twice, that second figure is where your complaints are coming from. It is also the number that improves when you fix a help article rather than when you hire.
Leave a Reply