Skip to main content
Performance dashboard showing service level and quality improvement across a CrossShore client programme

Case studies

Client Programme Case Studies

Anonymised client programmes showing the problem, what we changed and how it was measured. Each uses the metric structure we actually report against, so you can see what the review cadence looks like in practice.

Clients are anonymised at their request, so sector and market are given but names are not. More case studies will be published as client programmes mature and permission allows — if you want to speak to a client running a programme comparable to yours, book a consultation and we will arrange what we can.

HealthcareUnited StatesInbound Customer Support

A US healthcare client cut average patient response time by 47% with a 40-seat inbound programme

Average response time

−47%

Measured across all inbound patient contacts against the pre-programme baseline

Programme size

40 seats

Dedicated patient-support agents working only this client’s programme

Coverage

US business hours

Delivered from Ahmedabad night shifts, in-hours for the patient

Data handling

HIPAA-aware

Access-controlled floor, restricted USB and printing, role-based permissions

The challenge

  • Patient contact volume had outgrown the in-house team, and the queue was the first thing to suffer — callers waited, then called again, which inflated volume further.
  • Coverage stopped when the US office closed, so anything arriving late in the day waited until the next morning before anyone looked at it.
  • Every candidate solution ran into the same constraint: patient data meant the handling standard could not be relaxed to buy capacity.
  • Onshore hiring at the volume required was neither fast enough nor affordable against reimbursement per patient.

The programme

  • Sized a 40-seat dedicated patient-support team against measured contact volume by hour, then built the roster before agreeing the service level rather than after.
  • Staffed the programme entirely on Ahmedabad night shifts so US patients reach a named agent during their own business hours, not an after-hours service.
  • Ran the programme in an access-controlled zone with clean-desk enforcement, restricted USB and printing, VPN-only system access and role-based permissions, under a signed data processing agreement.
  • Trained agents on US healthcare terminology and the explicit boundaries of what a support agent may and may not say, with certification on mock interactions before any live patient contact.
  • Put an independent QA analyst on the programme, scoring recorded calls weekly against the client’s own rubric, reporting outside the delivery line.

The outcome

Average response time across all inbound patient contacts fell by 47% against the pre-programme baseline. The mechanism was not heroics — it was capacity present at the hours contacts actually arrive, which removed the overnight backlog that had been generating repeat calls each morning.

The secondary effect mattered more to the client than the headline figure. Because the queue stopped compounding, total contact volume fell as repeat callers stopped chasing unanswered enquiries, and the in-house team was freed to handle the clinical escalations that genuinely needed them.

The programme has since become the client’s primary patient-support channel. Capacity is reviewed quarterly against volume, and the same night-shift roster has absorbed two seasonal peaks without adding permanent headcount.

Financial ServicesUnited StatesBack Office Support

A California-based MCA lender reached 61% cost efficiency against its prior onshore operation

Cost efficiency

61%

Fully loaded cost against the client’s prior onshore operation

Scope

3 functions

Application processing, document chase and servicing calls

Coverage

US business hours

Aligned to Pacific Time so merchant calls land in-hours

Model

Blended team

One team across back office processing and outbound servicing contact

The challenge

  • Merchant cash advance lending is document-heavy and time-sensitive: an application that stalls waiting on a bank statement is an application a competitor funds first.
  • The onshore operation carried a fully loaded cost per seat that the margin on smaller advances could not support, which meant whole segments of the book were uneconomic to pursue.
  • Application processing, document chase and servicing calls were split across roles and systems, so nobody owned an application end to end and follow-up depended on whoever noticed.
  • Growth required more processing capacity than the local labour market could supply at a cost the product could carry.

The programme

  • Built one blended team covering all three functions — application intake and processing, outbound document chase, and servicing calls to funded merchants — so a single group owns the application from submission to funding.
  • Mapped the client’s underwriting checklist into a written processing standard, then trained and certified agents against it before any live file was touched.
  • Aligned shifts to Pacific Time so document-chase and servicing calls reach merchants during their own business day, which is the only time those calls actually connect.
  • Priced the programme as a single seat rate covering recruitment, training, workspace, telephony, supervision and QA, so the comparison against the onshore baseline was like-for-like rather than salary against seat cost.
  • Applied payment-data handling controls to the servicing workstream, with call recording controls and restricted access on the systems holding merchant banking detail.

The outcome

The programme delivered 61% cost efficiency against the client’s prior onshore operation on a fully loaded basis — seat rate against total cost of an equivalent onshore seat, not salary against salary.

What the client did with that efficiency is the more useful part of the story. Advance sizes that had previously been uneconomic to process became viable, which widened the addressable book rather than simply reducing a cost line. Follow-up cadences that had been cut for capacity reasons were reinstated, and document chase moved from reactive to scheduled.

Consolidating three functions into one accountable team removed the handoff gaps that had been the real source of stalled applications. Ownership of a file no longer changes hands between processing, chase and servicing, so nothing sits waiting for someone to notice it.

Reporting

The metric structure behind every programme

Case studies show outcomes. This is the reporting cadence that produces them — and what you would see week to week.

CrossShore client reporting dashboard showing daily service level attainment and quality scores
  • DailyService level attainment, volume, quality flags and staffing variance — in your time zone
  • WeeklyPerformance review with your delivery manager, QA scorecards and recordings attached
  • FortnightlyQuality calibration session your team is invited to join and score alongside ours
  • MonthlyBusiness review against the agreed SLA, with root-cause analysis on any miss
  • QuarterlyProgramme strategy review — scope expansion, capacity planning and cost per outcome

Your programme

Ask us for references in your sector

We would rather put you in touch with a client running a comparable programme than send you a case study. Tell us your sector and service requirement, and we will arrange what we can with client permission.