Solutions · One platform

Call center training tools that stop fighting each other

Most training stacks are an LMS from one vendor, a role-play tool from another, a QA platform from a third, and a spreadsheet holding it all together. Each tool has its own scores, its own logins, and its own version of the truth.

The tool-sprawl tax

Every extra tool in a training stack charges twice: once in licenses, and again in seams. The LMS says a trainee completed the course; the QA tool says their live calls fail on empathy; nobody can say whether training taught the wrong thing or QA measures something training never covered — because the two tools have never heard of each other's rubrics.

Trainers re-enter rosters in three systems. Ops exports CSVs to reconcile scores in a spreadsheet that's outdated by Friday. And when a client asks the simple question — 'show me this agent's journey from hire to today' — the answer takes a week to assemble.

For a mid-size floor, the sprawl isn't just cost. It's the reason coaching is reactive: by the time the spreadsheet says someone's struggling, the client has already noticed.

One rubric from first lesson to live call

Agent Dojo collapses the stack: the LMS, the AI practice calls, and live-call QA share one platform, one roster, and — critically — one rubric system. The criteria a trainee is scored on in their final practice call are the same criteria your QA analysts score real recorded calls against. Training and QA finally measure the same thing.

That single standard turns the agent journey into one continuous record: coursework, practice-call scores with coaching notes, certification, then live-call QA results — all under one login, per agent, exportable when the client asks.

Automations close the loop: a failed QA criterion can assign the matching refresher scenario automatically; a pass can advance the trainee to the next course. The stack stops being plumbing you maintain and becomes a program that runs itself.

What you'll use most

Call QA

Upload real recorded calls; they're transcribed and scored on the same rubrics your training uses.

Automations

Score-triggered rules: assign a refresher on a fail, notify a trainer, advance on a pass. Webhooks for the rest.

One score history

Practice and QA results in one timeline per agent — leaderboards for the floor, drill-downs for coaching.

Common questions

Can Agent Dojo replace our current QA tool?
For rubric-based call scoring, yes: upload recordings, get transcripts and per-criterion scores, review and override in an inbox built for analysts. If you keep a separate QA system, webhooks and the API keep scores flowing to it.
Does it integrate with the rest of our stack?
Outbound webhooks with signed payloads, a REST API with scoped keys, Slack notifications, and CSV export everywhere. An MCP endpoint lets your own AI tools query the platform directly.
What does consolidation actually save?
Typically two to three tool licenses, the hours spent reconciling them, and the coaching lag. One platform means the Friday script change updates the course, the AI caller, and the QA rubric in one edit — not three tickets.