This method has been around for a while, but surprisingly it isn’t supported in most modern LMS systems—mainly because most modern LMS solutions were designed by engineers lacking real-world experience in collections. In subprime circles, the Potential DQ method of collections is known to be a secret weapon to maximize monthly collection revenues. Let’s first discuss how the other LMS systems work. Agents are assigned to certain delinquency buckets (e.g., buckets 1 and 2, which is accounts that are presently 1-60 days past due). Each day, new accounts enter in and each day, old accounts disappear as they roll into bucket 3. There is a certain monotony with this strategy in that one never really feels like they are accomplishing much. This hamster wheel approach results in lackluster performance. With the Potential DQ method, agents are assigned a fixed group of accounts on the first day of the month. These accounts are identified by their due date. And so buckets 1 and 2 would be accounts that are due for this month and last month. Another way to put it is, “if they don’t make a payment all month long, what bucket will they end up in at the end of the month?”. In this way, an agent is assigned perhaps 500 delinquent accounts at BOM (beginning of month), and all month long, accounts are disappearing from their queue as payments are collected. Under this format, agents have a fixed workload, and have a sense of accomplishment as the work gets done (i.e., payments are collected). This method also facilitates an excellent reporting structure, where progress is measured each day and all levels of management can see this progress. At Lendisoft, we incorporate this method because we’ve seen how it produces up to 30% more in collection revenues month-after-month. To learn more, schedule a demo today!