US20210037139A1 - Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system - Google Patents
Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- US20210037139A1 US20210037139A1 US17/076,335 US202017076335A US2021037139A1 US 20210037139 A1 US20210037139 A1 US 20210037139A1 US 202017076335 A US202017076335 A US 202017076335A US 2021037139 A1 US2021037139 A1 US 2021037139A1
- Authority
- US
- United States
- Prior art keywords
- contact
- pairing strategy
- pairing
- agent
- benchmark
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Abandoned
Links
Images
Classifications
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04M—TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION
- H04M3/00—Automatic or semi-automatic exchanges
- H04M3/42—Systems providing special services or facilities to subscribers
- H04M3/50—Centralised arrangements for answering calls; Centralised arrangements for recording messages for absent or busy subscribers ; Centralised arrangements for recording messages
- H04M3/51—Centralised call answering arrangements requiring operator intervention, e.g. call or contact centers for telemarketing
- H04M3/523—Centralised call answering arrangements requiring operator intervention, e.g. call or contact centers for telemarketing with call distribution or queueing
- H04M3/5232—Call distribution algorithms
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F17/00—Digital computing or data processing equipment or methods, specially adapted for specific functions
- G06F17/10—Complex mathematical operations
- G06F17/18—Complex mathematical operations for evaluating statistical data, e.g. average values, frequency distributions, probability functions, regression analysis
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
- G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
- G06Q10/0639—Performance analysis of employees; Performance analysis of enterprise or organisation operations
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
- G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
- G06Q10/0639—Performance analysis of employees; Performance analysis of enterprise or organisation operations
- G06Q10/06398—Performance of employee with respect to a job function
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04M—TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION
- H04M3/00—Automatic or semi-automatic exchanges
- H04M3/42—Systems providing special services or facilities to subscribers
- H04M3/50—Centralised arrangements for answering calls; Centralised arrangements for recording messages for absent or busy subscribers ; Centralised arrangements for recording messages
- H04M3/51—Centralised call answering arrangements requiring operator intervention, e.g. call or contact centers for telemarketing
- H04M3/523—Centralised call answering arrangements requiring operator intervention, e.g. call or contact centers for telemarketing with call distribution or queueing
- H04M3/5232—Call distribution algorithms
- H04M3/5233—Operator skill based call distribution
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04M—TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION
- H04M2203/00—Aspects of automatic or semi-automatic exchanges
- H04M2203/55—Aspects of automatic or semi-automatic exchanges related to network data storage and management
- H04M2203/551—Call history
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04M—TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION
- H04M2203/00—Aspects of automatic or semi-automatic exchanges
- H04M2203/55—Aspects of automatic or semi-automatic exchanges related to network data storage and management
- H04M2203/555—Statistics, e.g. about subscribers but not being call statistics
- H04M2203/556—Statistical analysis and interpretation
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04M—TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION
- H04M3/00—Automatic or semi-automatic exchanges
- H04M3/42—Systems providing special services or facilities to subscribers
- H04M3/50—Centralised arrangements for answering calls; Centralised arrangements for recording messages for absent or busy subscribers ; Centralised arrangements for recording messages
- H04M3/51—Centralised call answering arrangements requiring operator intervention, e.g. call or contact centers for telemarketing
- H04M3/5141—Details of processing calls and other types of contacts in an unified manner
Definitions
- This disclosure generally relates to contact centers and, more particularly, to techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system.
- a typical contact center algorithm ically assigns contacts arriving at the contact center to agents available to handle those contacts.
- contact center administrators may wish to compare the performance of one algorithm against another. In some cases, contact center administrators can do this by alternating between the two algorithms and examining the resultant differences in performance over time.
- Such a benchmarking process can be subject to the Yule-Simpson effect (also referred to as “Simpson's Paradox”) in which the aggregation or amalgamation of distinct cross-sections of data can result in a misleading assessment of the actual performance differential between the assignment algorithms being alternated.
- such a mischaracterization of performance can be large.
- one algorithm may consistently outperform another in each of the periods in which it was responsible for contact assignment, but when aggregated the apparent performance of the two algorithms may in fact be reversed.
- the techniques may be realized as a method for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system comprising determining, by at least one computer processor configured to operate in the contact center system, results for a first plurality of contact-agent interactions; determining, by the at least one computer processor, results for a second plurality of contact-agent interactions; and determining, by the at least one computer processor, combined results across the first and second pluralities of contact-agent interactions corrected for a Yule-Simpson effect.
- At least one of the first and second pluralities of contact-agent interactions may be paired using at least two pairing strategies.
- a pairing strategy of the at least two pairing strategies may comprise at least one of: a behavioral pairing (BP) strategy, a first-in, first-out (FIFO) pairing strategy, a performance-based routing (PBR) strategy, a highest-performing-agent pairing strategy, a highest-performing-agent-for-contact-type pairing strategy, a longest-available-agent pairing strategy, a least-occupied-agent pairing strategy, a randomly-selected-agent pairing strategy, a randomly-selected-contact pairing strategy, a fewest-contacts-taken-by-agent pairing strategy, a sequentially-labeled-agent pairing strategy, a longest-waiting-contact pairing strategy, and a highest-priority-contact pairing strategy.
- BP behavioral pairing
- FIFO first-in, first-out
- PBR performance-based routing
- the at least two pairing strategies may alternate more frequently than once per day.
- the at least two pairing strategies may alternate more frequently more frequently than once per hour.
- the Yule-Simpson effect may be a result of an underlying partitioning of contact-agent interactions into at least the first and second pluralities of contact-agent interactions according to at least one of: a plurality of time periods, a plurality of agent skills, a plurality of contact-agent assignment strategies (pairing strategies), a plurality of contact center sites, a plurality of contact center switches, and a plurality of benchmarking schedules.
- the method may further comprise determining, by the at least one computer processor, an estimation of an extent of the Yule-Simpson effect.
- the techniques may be realized as a system for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system comprising: at least one computer processor configured to operate in the contact center system, wherein the at least one computer processor is further configured to: determine results for a first plurality of contact-agent interactions; determine results for a second plurality of contact-agent interactions; and determine combined results across the first and second pluralities of contact-agent interactions corrected for a Yule-Simpson effect.
- the techniques may be realized as an article of manufacture for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system comprising: a non-transitory computer processor readable medium; and instructions stored on the medium; wherein the instructions are configured to be readable from the medium by at least one computer processor configured to operate in the contact center system and thereby cause the at least one computer processor to operate further so as to: determine results for a first plurality of contact-agent interactions; determine results for a second plurality of contact-agent interactions; and determine combined results across the first and second pluralities of contact-agent interactions corrected for a Yule-Simpson effect.
- FIG. 1 shows a block diagram of a contact center system according to embodiments of the present disclosure.
- FIG. 2 shows a flow diagram of a benchmarking method according to embodiments of the present disclosure.
- FIG. 3 shows a flow diagram of a benchmarking method according to embodiments of the present disclosure.
- a typical contact center algorithm ically assigns contacts arriving at the contact center to agents available to handle those contacts.
- contact center administrators may wish to compare the performance of one algorithm against another. In some cases, contact center administrators can do this by alternating between the two algorithms and examining the resultant differences in performance over time.
- Such a benchmarking process can be subject to the Yule-Simpson effect (also referred to as “Simpson's Paradox”) in which the aggregation or amalgamation of distinct cross-sections of data can result in a misleading assessment of the actual performance differential between the assignment algorithms being alternated.
- Yule-Simpson effect also referred to as “Simpson's Paradox”
- such a mischaracterization of performance can be large.
- one algorithm may consistently outperform another in each of the periods in which it was responsible for contact assignment, but when aggregated the apparent performance of the two algorithms may in fact be reversed.
- a classic example of a reversal due to the Yule-Simpson effect was found in a study of graduate school admissions, in which most individual departments had a bias in favor of admitting female students, but aggregating the data made it appear as if the school as a whole had a bias in favor of admitting male students. See P. Bickel, et al., “Sex Bias in graduate Admissions: Data from Berkeley,” Science, vol. 187, issue 4175, at pp. 398-404 (1975), which is hereby incorporated by reference.
- FIG. 1 shows a block diagram of a contact center system 100 according to embodiments of the present disclosure.
- the description herein describes network elements, computers, and/or components of a system and method for simulating contact center systems that may include one or more modules.
- the term “module” may be understood to refer to computing software, firmware, hardware, and/or various combinations thereof. Modules, however, are not to be interpreted as software which is not implemented on hardware, firmware, or recorded on a processor readable recordable storage medium (i.e., modules are not software per se). It is noted that the modules are exemplary. The modules may be combined, integrated, separated, and/or duplicated to support various applications.
- a function described herein as being performed at a particular module may be performed at one or more other modules and/or by one or more other devices instead of or in addition to the function performed at the particular module.
- the modules may be implemented across multiple devices and/or other components local or remote to one another. Additionally, the modules may be moved from one device and added to another device, and/or may be included in both devices.
- the contact center system 100 may include a central switch 110 .
- the central switch 110 may receive incoming contacts (e.g., callers) or support outbound connections to contacts via a telecommunications network (not shown).
- the central switch 110 may include contact routing hardware and software for helping to route contacts among one or more contact centers, or to one or more PBX/ACDs or other queuing or switching components within a contact center.
- the central switch 110 may not be necessary if there is only one contact center, or if there is only one PBX/ACD routing component, in the contact center system 100 . If more than one contact center is part of the contact center system 100 , each contact center may include at least one contact center switch (e.g., contact center switches 120 A and 120 B). The contact center switches 120 A and 120 B may be communicatively coupled to the central switch 110 .
- Each contact center switch for each contact center may be communicatively coupled to a plurality (or “pool”) of agents.
- Each contact center switch may support a certain number of agents (or “seats”) to be logged in at one time.
- a logged-in agent may be available and waiting to be connected to a contact, or the logged-in agent may be unavailable for any of a number of reasons, such as being connected to another contact, performing certain post-call functions such as logging information about the call, or taking a break.
- the central switch 110 routes contacts to one of two contact centers via contact center switch 120 A and contact center switch 120 B, respectively.
- Each of the contact center switches 120 A and 120 B are shown with two agents each.
- Agents 130 A and 130 B may be logged into contact center switch 120 A, and agents 130 C and 130 D may be logged into contact center switch 120 B.
- contacts may be directed to one contact center switch or another, one pool of agents or another, etc., depending on the needs of the contact. For example, agents skilled at sales may be more likely to receive contacts seeking to make a purchase, whereas agents skilled at technical support may be more likely to receive contacts seeking technical assistance.
- the contact center system 100 may also be communicatively coupled to an integrated service from, for example, a third party vendor.
- benchmarking module 140 may be communicatively coupled to one or more switches in the switch system of the contact center system 100 , such as central switch 110 , contact center switch 120 A, or contact center switch 120 B.
- switches of the contact center system 100 may be communicatively coupled to multiple benchmarking modules.
- benchmarking module 140 may be embedded within a component of a contact center system (e.g., embedded in or otherwise integrated with a switch).
- the benchmarking module 140 may receive information from a switch (e.g., contact center switch 120 A) about agents logged into the switch (e.g., agents 130 A and 130 B) and about incoming contacts via another switch (e.g., central switch 110 ) or, in some embodiments, from a network (e.g., the Internet or a telecommunications network) (not shown).
- a switch e.g., contact center switch 120 A
- agents logged into the switch e.g., agents 130 A and 130 B
- incoming contacts via another switch (e.g., central switch 110 ) or, in some embodiments, from a network (e.g., the Internet or a telecommunications network) (not shown).
- a network e.g., the Internet or a telecommunications network
- FIG. 2 shows a flow diagram of benchmarking method 200 according to embodiments of the present disclosure. At block 210 , benchmarking method 200 may begin.
- results for a first plurality of contact-agent interactions paired using alternating pairing strategies may be recorded.
- benchmarking module 140 FIG. 1
- other pairing modules may cycle among two or more pairing strategies, such as a first-in, first-out (“FIFO”) pairing strategy and a behavioral pairing (“BP”) pairing strategy.
- FIFO first-in, first-out
- BP behavioral pairing
- Various other pairing strategies e.g., longest-available agent pairing strategy, fewest-contact-interactions-taken-by-agent pairing strategy, etc.
- benchmarking strategies e.g., epoch, inline, and hybrid epoch-inline benchmarking strategies are described in, e.g., U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/131,915, filed Apr.
- the contact center system (e.g., contact center system 100 ) may be an inbound call center, and each contact-agent interaction is a call answered and handled by a phone agent.
- contact-agent interactions may occur via email, instant messaging or chat, offline case allocations, etc.
- results for a second plurality of contact-agent interactions paired using the alternating pairing strategies may be recorded.
- blocks 210 and 220 may be performed simultaneously, as results for individual contact-agent interactions associated with either the first or second plurality of contact-agent interactions become available for recording or other processing.
- contact-agent interactions may be grouped into more than two pluralities.
- contact-agent interactions may be divided based on sites.
- the first plurality of contact-agent interactions may be handled by one contact center system
- the second plurality of contact-agent interactions may be handled by a second contact center system.
- Unequal distributions of contacts coupled with differences in measured outcomes between the two or more different sites may give rise to the Yule-Simpson effect on the relative performance between the alternating pairing strategies.
- contact-agent interactions may be divided based on switches.
- the first plurality of contact-agent interactions may be handled by one contact center switch (e.g., contact center switch 120 A in FIG. 1 )
- the second plurality of contact-agent interactions may be handled by a second contact center switch (e.g., contact center switch 120 B in FIG. 1 ).
- Unequal distributions of contacts coupled with differences in measured outcomes between the two or more switches may give rise to the Yule-Simpson effect on the relative performance between the alternating pairing strategies.
- contact-agent interactions may be divided based on skills.
- the first plurality of contact-agent interactions may be handled by one pool of agents specializing in, e.g., sales
- the second plurality of contact-agent interactions may be handled by a second pool of agents specializing in, e.g., technical support.
- Unequal distributions of contacts coupled with differences in measured outcomes between the two or more skills may give rise to the Yule-Simpson effect on the relative performance between the alternating pairing strategies.
- contact-agent interactions may be divided based on time periods.
- the first plurality of contact-agent interactions may be those that occurred during a first time period (e.g., a first hour, day, week, month)
- the second plurality of contact-agent interactions may be those that occurred during a second time period (e.g., a second hour, day, week, month).
- Unequal distributions of contacts coupled with differences in measured outcomes between the two or more time periods may give rise to the Yule-Simpson effect on the relative performance between the alternating pairing strategies.
- contact-agent interactions may be divided based on benchmarking schedules.
- the first plurality of contact-agent interactions may be handled according to a first benchmarking schedule (e.g., 50% FIFO and 50% BP).
- the benchmarking schedule may be adjusted, and the second plurality of contact-agent interactions may be handled according to a second benchmarking schedule (e.g., 20% FIFO and 80% BP).
- Unequal distributions of contacts coupled with differences in measured outcomes such as changes in conversion rates between the two or more benchmarking schedules may give rise to the Yule-Simpson effect on the relative performance between the alternating pairing strategies.
- the benchmarking schedule (e.g., 50% FIFO and 50% BP) may span a short period of time (e.g., thirty minutes, one hour) to complete one full cycle switching strategies. In other embodiments, the benchmarking schedule may span a longer period of time (e.g., several hours, two days). For longer cycle durations (e.g., two days, or one day of FIFO followed by one day of BP), there is a greater likelihood of an unequal distribution of contacts coupled with differences in measured outcomes, which may be due to special day-to-day promotional activities (e.g., Black Friday, Cyber Monday, holiday sales) or other sources of noise or variability.
- special day-to-day promotional activities e.g., Black Friday, Cyber Monday, holiday sales
- unequal distributions of contacts between the two or more portions of a benchmarking schedule may give rise to the Yule-Simpson effect as well.
- a benchmarking schedule other than 50/50 e.g., 20% FIFO and 80% BP
- one skill group may end up pairing 45% of contacts during the FIFO portion and 55% during the BP portion, while another skill group may remain at 50% each.
- different skills may be operating using different benchmarking schedules, or they may be operating on the same benchmarking schedule, but the benchmark distribution may be disturbed due to volume fluctuations for one or more the previously described reasons.
- one skill may be a phone-based sales queue operating on a 50/50 benchmark, and the other skill may be a web-based sales queue operating on an 80/20 benchmark.
- an unequal distribution of contacts coupled with differences in measured outcomes may give rise to the Yule-Simpson effect due to the differences in benchmarking schedules across skills.
- scheduled maintenance, contact center downtime, connectivity issues, or other unplanned slow-downs or outages may lead to unequal distributions of contacts coupled with differences in measured outcomes that gives rise to the Yule-Simpson effect.
- contact-agent interactions may be divided based on a combination of two or more criteria for dividing contact-agent interactions. For example, contact-agent interactions may be divided by switch by site, by skill by day, by skill by benchmarking schedule, by skill by switch by day, etc.
- benchmarking method 200 may proceed to block 230 .
- a correction factor may be applied to correct for the Yule-Simpson effect, and at block 240 , relative performance between the alternating pairing strategies, corrected for the Yule-Simpson effect, may be determined.
- the following tables illustrate an example of the Yule-Simpson effect on a contact center system in which benchmarking method 200 may be performed as described above.
- the benchmarking module is operating on a sales queue in a contact center system with two skills, Skill A and Skill B (e.g., sales to new customers and sales to upgrade existing customers).
- Contacts may be paired to agents of either Skill A or Skill B, alternating between BP and FIFO pairing strategies.
- a result is recorded.
- the result is binary indication of whether a sale was successfully completed with a new customer in Skill A or an existing customer in Skill B.
- the first plurality of contact-agent interactions are those assigned to agents designated for Skill A, and the second plurality of contact-agent interactions are those assigned to agents designated for Skill B.
- the contact center system handled 450 contact-agent interactions (e.g., 450 calls).
- the first plurality of contact-agent interactions (designated for Skill A) contained a total of 250 interactions, of which 200 were paired using BP and 50 were paired using FIFO.
- the second plurality of contact-agent interactions (designated for Skill B) contained a total of 200 interactions, of which 100 were paired using BP and 100 were paired using FIFO.
- results were recorded for each contact-agent interaction. There were 22 successful sales within the first plurality of 250 Skill A interactions, of which 20 were attributable to BP pairing and 2 were attributable to FIFO pairing. There were 58 successful sales within the second plurality of 200 Skill B interactions, of which 30 were attributable to BP pairing and 28 were attributable to FIFO pairing.
- unequal contact distribution between skills gives rise to the Yule-Simpson effect, as shown in Table II (below).
- conversion rates can be determined that are attributable to each of the pairing strategies.
- the conversion rate for all interactions paired using BP (50 of 300) is approximately 16.7%, and the conversion rate for all interactions paired using FIFO (30 of 150) is 20%. In this example, it appears as though BP performed worse than FIFO across all interactions.
- the drop in performance from FIFO to BP is approximately a negative 16.7% gain.
- the conversion rates for interactions of the first plurality is 10% for BP pairings (20 of 200) and 4% for FIFO pairings (2 of 50).
- the conversion rates for interactions of the second plurality (Skill B) is 30% for BP pairings (30 of 100) and 28% for FIFO pairings.
- BP performed better than FIFO across all of the Skill A interactions (150% gain) and all of the Skill B interactions (approximately 7.1% gain).
- one or more correction factors may be applied to correct for the Yule-Simpson effect to, for example, normalize the uneven distribution of interactions across skills.
- correction factors may be applied to the first plurality of contact-agent interactions (Skill A) to normalize the number of contact-agent interactions paired within Skill A using BP and FIFO, and correction factors may be applied to the second plurality of contact-agent interactions (Skill B) to normalize the number of contact-agent interactions paired within Skill B using BP and FIFO, as shown below in Table III.
- the correction factor for each combination of pairing method and skill may be one-half the ratio of total contact-agent interactions for the skill to the number of contact-agent interactions for the pairing method within the skill, as shown below in Table III.
- Table IV shows conversion rates and relative performance for the two pairing strategies across skills and in the aggregate after applying one or more correction factors as shown in, e.g., Tables IIIA-C.
- Table IV shows that Simpson's Paradox has been eliminated, and an appropriate total positive gain for BP over FIFO has been determined.
- benchmarking method 200 may end. In some embodiments, benchmarking method 200 may return block 210 and/or block 220 to record and process further results of contact-agent interactions.
- the increase in performance of one pairing strategy (e.g., BP) over another (e.g., FIFO) may be used to determine an economic benefit.
- this economic benefit may be used to determine a fee or payment to a third-party vendor or other supplier of the beneficial pairing strategy (e.g., a vendor of a behavioral pairing module).
- a third-party vendor or other supplier of the beneficial pairing strategy e.g., a vendor of a behavioral pairing module.
- the benchmarking module 140 may be configured to determine an aggregated performance gain that does not correct for the Yule-Simpson effect in addition to a normalized aggregated performance gain that does correct for the Yule-Simpson effect.
- FIG. 3 shows a flow diagram of benchmarking method 300 according to embodiments of the present disclosure. At block 310 , benchmarking method 300 may begin.
- results for a first plurality of contact-agent interactions paired using alternating pairing strategies may be recorded.
- results for a second plurality of contact-agent interactions paired using the alternating pairing strategies may be recorded.
- blocks 310 and 320 may be performed simultaneously, as results for individual contact-agent interactions associated with either the first or second plurality of contact-agent interactions become available for recording or other processing.
- contact-agent interactions may be grouped into more than two pluralities.
- relative performance between the alternating pairing strategies may be determined without correcting for the Yule-Simpson effect.
- the total relative performance of BP to FIFO was a loss of approximately 16.7%.
- relative performance between the alternating pairing strategies may be determined with correction for the Yule-Simpson effect.
- the normalized total relative performance of BP to FIFO was a gain of 28.6%.
- an amount of relative performance mischaracterization attributable to the Yule-Simpson effect may be determined. For example, comparing the total gain in Table II to the normalized total gain in Table IV, the Yule-Simpson effect caused an approximately 45.3-point drop in relative performance of BP to FIFO, or a decrease of approximately 171.3%.
- the output of blocks 330 , 340 , and/or 350 , along with other information regarding the performance of the contact center system may be incorporated into reports or stored in databases or other memory. This information may be helpful for demonstrating the impact of the Yule-Simpson effect and the importance of correcting it and accounting for it to determine the statistically appropriate economic value attributable to one pairing strategy over another.
- benchmarking method 300 may end. In some embodiments, benchmarking method 300 may return block 310 and/or block 320 to record and process further results of contact-agent interactions.
- benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system in accordance with the present disclosure as described above may involve the processing of input data and the generation of output data to some extent.
- This input data processing and output data generation may be implemented in hardware or software.
- specific electronic components may be employed in a behavioral pairing module or similar or related circuitry for implementing the functions associated with behavioral pairing in a contact center system in accordance with the present disclosure as described above.
- one or more processors operating in accordance with instructions may implement the functions associated with behavioral pairing in a contact center system in accordance with the present disclosure as described above.
- Such instructions may be stored on one or more non-transitory processor readable storage media (e.g., a magnetic disk or other storage medium), or transmitted to one or more processors via one or more signals embodied in one or more carrier waves.
- processor readable storage media e.g., a magnetic disk or other storage medium
Abstract
Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system are disclosed. In one particular embodiment, the techniques may be realized as a method for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system including determining results for a first plurality of contact-agent interactions, determining results for a second plurality of contact-agent interactions, and determining combined results across the first and second pluralities of contact-agent interactions corrected for a Yule-Simpson effect.
Description
- This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/573,627, filed Sep. 17, 2019, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/114,511, filed Aug. 28, 2018, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,419,615, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/633,162, filed Jun. 26, 2017, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,110,745, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/251,591, filed Aug. 30, 2016, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,692,899, which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety as if fully set forth herein.
- This disclosure generally relates to contact centers and, more particularly, to techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system.
- A typical contact center algorithmically assigns contacts arriving at the contact center to agents available to handle those contacts. Several potential algorithms exist for assigning contacts to contact center agents. These include time-ordered assignment strategies, utilization-based assignment strategies, performance-based assignment strategies, and behaviorally-based assignment strategies.
- At times, contact center administrators may wish to compare the performance of one algorithm against another. In some cases, contact center administrators can do this by alternating between the two algorithms and examining the resultant differences in performance over time. Such a benchmarking process can be subject to the Yule-Simpson effect (also referred to as “Simpson's Paradox”) in which the aggregation or amalgamation of distinct cross-sections of data can result in a misleading assessment of the actual performance differential between the assignment algorithms being alternated.
- In some cases, such a mischaracterization of performance can be large. For example, one algorithm may consistently outperform another in each of the periods in which it was responsible for contact assignment, but when aggregated the apparent performance of the two algorithms may in fact be reversed.
- In view of the foregoing, it may be understood that there is a need for a system that corrects for such a mischaracterization that can result from the Yule-Simpson effect.
- Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system are disclosed. In one embodiment, the techniques may be realized as a method for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system comprising determining, by at least one computer processor configured to operate in the contact center system, results for a first plurality of contact-agent interactions; determining, by the at least one computer processor, results for a second plurality of contact-agent interactions; and determining, by the at least one computer processor, combined results across the first and second pluralities of contact-agent interactions corrected for a Yule-Simpson effect.
- In accordance with other aspects of this embodiment, at least one of the first and second pluralities of contact-agent interactions may be paired using at least two pairing strategies.
- In accordance with other aspects of this embodiment, a pairing strategy of the at least two pairing strategies may comprise at least one of: a behavioral pairing (BP) strategy, a first-in, first-out (FIFO) pairing strategy, a performance-based routing (PBR) strategy, a highest-performing-agent pairing strategy, a highest-performing-agent-for-contact-type pairing strategy, a longest-available-agent pairing strategy, a least-occupied-agent pairing strategy, a randomly-selected-agent pairing strategy, a randomly-selected-contact pairing strategy, a fewest-contacts-taken-by-agent pairing strategy, a sequentially-labeled-agent pairing strategy, a longest-waiting-contact pairing strategy, and a highest-priority-contact pairing strategy.
- In accordance with other aspects of this embodiment, the at least two pairing strategies may alternate more frequently than once per day.
- In accordance with other aspects of this embodiment, the at least two pairing strategies may alternate more frequently more frequently than once per hour.
- In accordance with other aspects of this embodiment, the Yule-Simpson effect may be a result of an underlying partitioning of contact-agent interactions into at least the first and second pluralities of contact-agent interactions according to at least one of: a plurality of time periods, a plurality of agent skills, a plurality of contact-agent assignment strategies (pairing strategies), a plurality of contact center sites, a plurality of contact center switches, and a plurality of benchmarking schedules.
- In accordance with other aspects of this embodiment, the method may further comprise determining, by the at least one computer processor, an estimation of an extent of the Yule-Simpson effect.
- In another embodiment, the techniques may be realized as a system for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system comprising: at least one computer processor configured to operate in the contact center system, wherein the at least one computer processor is further configured to: determine results for a first plurality of contact-agent interactions; determine results for a second plurality of contact-agent interactions; and determine combined results across the first and second pluralities of contact-agent interactions corrected for a Yule-Simpson effect.
- In another embodiment, the techniques may be realized as an article of manufacture for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system comprising: a non-transitory computer processor readable medium; and instructions stored on the medium; wherein the instructions are configured to be readable from the medium by at least one computer processor configured to operate in the contact center system and thereby cause the at least one computer processor to operate further so as to: determine results for a first plurality of contact-agent interactions; determine results for a second plurality of contact-agent interactions; and determine combined results across the first and second pluralities of contact-agent interactions corrected for a Yule-Simpson effect.
- The present disclosure will now be described in more detail with reference to particular embodiments thereof as shown in the accompanying drawings. While the present disclosure is described below with reference to particular embodiments, it should be understood that the present disclosure is not limited thereto. Those of ordinary skill in the art having access to the teachings herein will recognize additional implementations, modifications, and embodiments, as well as other fields of use, which are within the scope of the present disclosure as described herein, and with respect to which the present disclosure may be of significant utility.
- In order to facilitate a fuller understanding of the present disclosure, reference is now made to the accompanying drawings, in which like elements are referenced with like numerals. These drawings should not be construed as limiting the present disclosure, but are intended to be illustrative only.
-
FIG. 1 shows a block diagram of a contact center system according to embodiments of the present disclosure. -
FIG. 2 shows a flow diagram of a benchmarking method according to embodiments of the present disclosure. -
FIG. 3 shows a flow diagram of a benchmarking method according to embodiments of the present disclosure. - A typical contact center algorithmically assigns contacts arriving at the contact center to agents available to handle those contacts. Several potential algorithms exist for assigning contacts to contact center agents. These include time-ordered assignment strategies, utilization-based assignment strategies, performance-based assignment strategies, and behaviorally-based assignment strategies.
- At times, contact center administrators may wish to compare the performance of one algorithm against another. In some cases, contact center administrators can do this by alternating between the two algorithms and examining the resultant differences in performance over time. Such a benchmarking process can be subject to the Yule-Simpson effect (also referred to as “Simpson's Paradox”) in which the aggregation or amalgamation of distinct cross-sections of data can result in a misleading assessment of the actual performance differential between the assignment algorithms being alternated. See E. Simpson, “The Interpretation of Interaction in Contingency Tables,” J. of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, vol. 13, at pp. 238-241 (1951), which is hereby incorporated by reference.
- In some cases, such a mischaracterization of performance can be large. For example, one algorithm may consistently outperform another in each of the periods in which it was responsible for contact assignment, but when aggregated the apparent performance of the two algorithms may in fact be reversed. A classic example of a reversal due to the Yule-Simpson effect was found in a study of graduate school admissions, in which most individual departments had a bias in favor of admitting female students, but aggregating the data made it appear as if the school as a whole had a bias in favor of admitting male students. See P. Bickel, et al., “Sex Bias in Graduate Admissions: Data from Berkeley,” Science, vol. 187, issue 4175, at pp. 398-404 (1975), which is hereby incorporated by reference.
-
FIG. 1 shows a block diagram of acontact center system 100 according to embodiments of the present disclosure. The description herein describes network elements, computers, and/or components of a system and method for simulating contact center systems that may include one or more modules. As used herein, the term “module” may be understood to refer to computing software, firmware, hardware, and/or various combinations thereof. Modules, however, are not to be interpreted as software which is not implemented on hardware, firmware, or recorded on a processor readable recordable storage medium (i.e., modules are not software per se). It is noted that the modules are exemplary. The modules may be combined, integrated, separated, and/or duplicated to support various applications. Also, a function described herein as being performed at a particular module may be performed at one or more other modules and/or by one or more other devices instead of or in addition to the function performed at the particular module. Further, the modules may be implemented across multiple devices and/or other components local or remote to one another. Additionally, the modules may be moved from one device and added to another device, and/or may be included in both devices. - As shown in
FIG. 1 , thecontact center system 100 may include acentral switch 110. Thecentral switch 110 may receive incoming contacts (e.g., callers) or support outbound connections to contacts via a telecommunications network (not shown). Thecentral switch 110 may include contact routing hardware and software for helping to route contacts among one or more contact centers, or to one or more PBX/ACDs or other queuing or switching components within a contact center. - The
central switch 110 may not be necessary if there is only one contact center, or if there is only one PBX/ACD routing component, in thecontact center system 100. If more than one contact center is part of thecontact center system 100, each contact center may include at least one contact center switch (e.g., contact center switches 120A and 120B). The contact center switches 120A and 120B may be communicatively coupled to thecentral switch 110. - Each contact center switch for each contact center may be communicatively coupled to a plurality (or “pool”) of agents. Each contact center switch may support a certain number of agents (or “seats”) to be logged in at one time. At any given time, a logged-in agent may be available and waiting to be connected to a contact, or the logged-in agent may be unavailable for any of a number of reasons, such as being connected to another contact, performing certain post-call functions such as logging information about the call, or taking a break.
- In the example of
FIG. 1 , thecentral switch 110 routes contacts to one of two contact centers viacontact center switch 120A andcontact center switch 120B, respectively. Each of the contact center switches 120A and 120B are shown with two agents each.Agents contact center switch 120A, andagents contact center switch 120B. In a multi-skilled environment, contacts may be directed to one contact center switch or another, one pool of agents or another, etc., depending on the needs of the contact. For example, agents skilled at sales may be more likely to receive contacts seeking to make a purchase, whereas agents skilled at technical support may be more likely to receive contacts seeking technical assistance. - The
contact center system 100 may also be communicatively coupled to an integrated service from, for example, a third party vendor. In the example ofFIG. 1 ,benchmarking module 140 may be communicatively coupled to one or more switches in the switch system of thecontact center system 100, such ascentral switch 110,contact center switch 120A, orcontact center switch 120B. In some embodiments, switches of thecontact center system 100 may be communicatively coupled to multiple benchmarking modules. In some embodiments,benchmarking module 140 may be embedded within a component of a contact center system (e.g., embedded in or otherwise integrated with a switch). Thebenchmarking module 140 may receive information from a switch (e.g.,contact center switch 120A) about agents logged into the switch (e.g.,agents benchmarking module 140 may be configured to measure relative performance among two or more pairing strategies with Yule-Simpson effect compensation, without Yule-Simpson effect compensation, or both. -
FIG. 2 shows a flow diagram ofbenchmarking method 200 according to embodiments of the present disclosure. Atblock 210,benchmarking method 200 may begin. - At
block 210, results for a first plurality of contact-agent interactions paired using alternating pairing strategies may be recorded. For example, benchmarking module 140 (FIG. 1 ) or other pairing modules (not shown) may cycle among two or more pairing strategies, such as a first-in, first-out (“FIFO”) pairing strategy and a behavioral pairing (“BP”) pairing strategy. Various other pairing strategies (e.g., longest-available agent pairing strategy, fewest-contact-interactions-taken-by-agent pairing strategy, etc.), and various benchmarking strategies (e.g., epoch, inline, and hybrid epoch-inline benchmarking strategies) are described in, e.g., U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/131,915, filed Apr. 18, 2016, which is hereby incorporated by reference. In some embodiments, the contact center system (e.g., contact center system 100) may be an inbound call center, and each contact-agent interaction is a call answered and handled by a phone agent. In other embodiments, contact-agent interactions may occur via email, instant messaging or chat, offline case allocations, etc. - At
block 220, results for a second plurality of contact-agent interactions paired using the alternating pairing strategies (e.g., FIFO and BP pairing strategies) may be recorded. In some embodiments, blocks 210 and 220 may be performed simultaneously, as results for individual contact-agent interactions associated with either the first or second plurality of contact-agent interactions become available for recording or other processing. In some embodiments, contact-agent interactions may be grouped into more than two pluralities. - In some embodiments, contact-agent interactions may be divided based on sites. For example, the first plurality of contact-agent interactions may be handled by one contact center system, and the second plurality of contact-agent interactions may be handled by a second contact center system. Unequal distributions of contacts coupled with differences in measured outcomes between the two or more different sites (e.g., contact center systems) may give rise to the Yule-Simpson effect on the relative performance between the alternating pairing strategies.
- In some embodiments, contact-agent interactions may be divided based on switches. For example, the first plurality of contact-agent interactions may be handled by one contact center switch (e.g.,
contact center switch 120A inFIG. 1 ), and the second plurality of contact-agent interactions may be handled by a second contact center switch (e.g.,contact center switch 120B inFIG. 1 ). Unequal distributions of contacts coupled with differences in measured outcomes between the two or more switches may give rise to the Yule-Simpson effect on the relative performance between the alternating pairing strategies. - In some embodiments, contact-agent interactions may be divided based on skills. For example, the first plurality of contact-agent interactions may be handled by one pool of agents specializing in, e.g., sales, and the second plurality of contact-agent interactions may be handled by a second pool of agents specializing in, e.g., technical support. Unequal distributions of contacts coupled with differences in measured outcomes between the two or more skills may give rise to the Yule-Simpson effect on the relative performance between the alternating pairing strategies.
- In some embodiments, contact-agent interactions may be divided based on time periods. For example, the first plurality of contact-agent interactions may be those that occurred during a first time period (e.g., a first hour, day, week, month), and the second plurality of contact-agent interactions may be those that occurred during a second time period (e.g., a second hour, day, week, month). Unequal distributions of contacts coupled with differences in measured outcomes between the two or more time periods may give rise to the Yule-Simpson effect on the relative performance between the alternating pairing strategies.
- In some embodiments, contact-agent interactions may be divided based on benchmarking schedules. For example, the first plurality of contact-agent interactions may be handled according to a first benchmarking schedule (e.g., 50% FIFO and 50% BP). At some point, such as a point in time during a benchmarking reporting cycle (e.g., one week, one month), the benchmarking schedule may be adjusted, and the second plurality of contact-agent interactions may be handled according to a second benchmarking schedule (e.g., 20% FIFO and 80% BP). Unequal distributions of contacts coupled with differences in measured outcomes such as changes in conversion rates between the two or more benchmarking schedules may give rise to the Yule-Simpson effect on the relative performance between the alternating pairing strategies.
- In some embodiments, the benchmarking schedule (e.g., 50% FIFO and 50% BP) may span a short period of time (e.g., thirty minutes, one hour) to complete one full cycle switching strategies. In other embodiments, the benchmarking schedule may span a longer period of time (e.g., several hours, two days). For longer cycle durations (e.g., two days, or one day of FIFO followed by one day of BP), there is a greater likelihood of an unequal distribution of contacts coupled with differences in measured outcomes, which may be due to special day-to-day promotional activities (e.g., Black Friday, Cyber Monday, holiday sales) or other sources of noise or variability.
- In some embodiments, unequal distributions of contacts between the two or more portions of a benchmarking schedule may give rise to the Yule-Simpson effect as well. For example, a benchmarking schedule other than 50/50 (e.g., 20% FIFO and 80% BP) may be expected to have unequal distributions of contacts coupled with differences in measured outcomes between the different pairing strategies.
- Moreover, even for 50/50 benchmarking schedules, unequal distributions of contacts may arise due to fluctuations in contact volume during the reporting cycle. For example, in the case of a 50/50 benchmarking schedule, one skill group may end up pairing 45% of contacts during the FIFO portion and 55% during the BP portion, while another skill group may remain at 50% each.
- In some embodiments, different skills may be operating using different benchmarking schedules, or they may be operating on the same benchmarking schedule, but the benchmark distribution may be disturbed due to volume fluctuations for one or more the previously described reasons. For example, one skill may be a phone-based sales queue operating on a 50/50 benchmark, and the other skill may be a web-based sales queue operating on an 80/20 benchmark. In these embodiments, an unequal distribution of contacts coupled with differences in measured outcomes may give rise to the Yule-Simpson effect due to the differences in benchmarking schedules across skills.
- In some embodiments, scheduled maintenance, contact center downtime, connectivity issues, or other unplanned slow-downs or outages may lead to unequal distributions of contacts coupled with differences in measured outcomes that gives rise to the Yule-Simpson effect.
- The embodiments and scenarios described above are merely examples; many other situations may arise within a contact center system that can lead to imbalances to an underlying benchmarking strategy and the outcomes of different sets of contact interactions (e.g., call outcomes), which may give rise to the Yule-Simpson effect.
- In some embodiments, contact-agent interactions may be divided based on a combination of two or more criteria for dividing contact-agent interactions. For example, contact-agent interactions may be divided by switch by site, by skill by day, by skill by benchmarking schedule, by skill by switch by day, etc.
- Having recorded results for the two (or more) pluralities of contact-agent interactions at
blocks benchmarking method 200 may proceed to block 230. - At
block 230, a correction factor may be applied to correct for the Yule-Simpson effect, and atblock 240, relative performance between the alternating pairing strategies, corrected for the Yule-Simpson effect, may be determined. - The following tables illustrate an example of the Yule-Simpson effect on a contact center system in which
benchmarking method 200 may be performed as described above. In this simple, illustrative scenario, the benchmarking module is operating on a sales queue in a contact center system with two skills, Skill A and Skill B (e.g., sales to new customers and sales to upgrade existing customers). Contacts may be paired to agents of either Skill A or Skill B, alternating between BP and FIFO pairing strategies. For each contact-agent interaction, a result is recorded. In this example, the result is binary indication of whether a sale was successfully completed with a new customer in Skill A or an existing customer in Skill B. The first plurality of contact-agent interactions are those assigned to agents designated for Skill A, and the second plurality of contact-agent interactions are those assigned to agents designated for Skill B. -
TABLE I BP Sales FIFO Sales Skill A 20 of 200 2 of 50 Skill B 30 of 100 28 of 100 Total 50 of 300 30 of 150 - As shown in Table I (above), the contact center system handled 450 contact-agent interactions (e.g., 450 calls). The first plurality of contact-agent interactions (designated for Skill A) contained a total of 250 interactions, of which 200 were paired using BP and 50 were paired using FIFO. The second plurality of contact-agent interactions (designated for Skill B) contained a total of 200 interactions, of which 100 were paired using BP and 100 were paired using FIFO.
- Also, as shown in Table I, results were recorded for each contact-agent interaction. There were 22 successful sales within the first plurality of 250 Skill A interactions, of which 20 were attributable to BP pairing and 2 were attributable to FIFO pairing. There were 58 successful sales within the second plurality of 200 Skill B interactions, of which 30 were attributable to BP pairing and 28 were attributable to FIFO pairing. In this example, unequal contact distribution between skills gives rise to the Yule-Simpson effect, as shown in Table II (below).
-
TABLE II BP Conversion FIFO Conversion Relative Performance Rate Rate of BP over FIFO Skill A 10.0% 4.0% 150.0% Skill B 30.0% 28.0% 7.1% Total 16.7% 20.0% −16.7% - As show in Table II, conversion rates can be determined that are attributable to each of the pairing strategies. The conversion rate for all interactions paired using BP (50 of 300) is approximately 16.7%, and the conversion rate for all interactions paired using FIFO (30 of 150) is 20%. In this example, it appears as though BP performed worse than FIFO across all interactions. The drop in performance from FIFO to BP is approximately a negative 16.7% gain.
- Also, as shown in Table II, the conversion rates for interactions of the first plurality (Skill A) is 10% for BP pairings (20 of 200) and 4% for FIFO pairings (2 of 50). The conversion rates for interactions of the second plurality (Skill B) is 30% for BP pairings (30 of 100) and 28% for FIFO pairings. In this example, BP performed better than FIFO across all of the Skill A interactions (150% gain) and all of the Skill B interactions (approximately 7.1% gain). Paradoxically, BP performed better than FIFO when calculated on a skill-by-skill basis, but worse when the unequal distributions of interactions are inappropriately summed without a correction factor for the Yule-Simpson effect (“Simpson's Paradox”).
- In some embodiments, one or more correction factors may be applied to correct for the Yule-Simpson effect to, for example, normalize the uneven distribution of interactions across skills. In some embodiments, correction factors may be applied to the first plurality of contact-agent interactions (Skill A) to normalize the number of contact-agent interactions paired within Skill A using BP and FIFO, and correction factors may be applied to the second plurality of contact-agent interactions (Skill B) to normalize the number of contact-agent interactions paired within Skill B using BP and FIFO, as shown below in Table III.
- In some embodiments, the correction factor for each combination of pairing method and skill may be one-half the ratio of total contact-agent interactions for the skill to the number of contact-agent interactions for the pairing method within the skill, as shown below in Table III. For example, the BP correction factor for Skill A may be computed as (0.5)(200+50)/200=0.625, and the FIFO correction factor for Skill A may be computed as (0.5)(200+50)/50=2.5. Because the number of contact-agent interactions is already balanced between BP and FIFO pairings within Skill B, no correction factors are needed (i.e., a multiplicative identity factor of 1.0).
- Applying the BP and FIFO correction factors to the BP Sales and FIFO Sales, respectively, results in normalized values for BP Sales and FIFO sales, as shown in Table III.
-
TABLE III BP Correction FIFO Correction BP Sales FIFO Sales Factor Factor (Normalized) (Normalized) Skill A 0.625 2.5 12.5 of 125 5 of 125 Skill B N/A (1.0) N/A (1.0) 30 of 100 28 of 100 Total 42.5 of 225 33 of 225 - Other embodiments may use other suitable corrections, adjustments, or other techniques to normalize or otherwise compensate for the Yule-Simpson effect. In each case, the conversion rates for each individual skill remains the same, so the relative performance of BP over FIFO for each individual skill remains the same. However, having normalized the number of interactions across each skill, the data may now be aggregated appropriately to arrive at a total conversion rate across all skills, and a total gain in performance of BP over FIFO.
- The example shown in Table IV shows conversion rates and relative performance for the two pairing strategies across skills and in the aggregate after applying one or more correction factors as shown in, e.g., Tables IIIA-C. Table IV shows that Simpson's Paradox has been eliminated, and an appropriate total positive gain for BP over FIFO has been determined.
-
TABLE IV BP Conversion FIFO Conversion Relative Performance Rate Rate of BP over FIFO Skill A 10.0% 4.0% 150.0% Skill B 30.0% 28.0% 7.1% Total 18.9% 14.7% 28.6% (Normalized) - As shown in Table IV, the conversion rates for BP and FIFO pairings within each skill remain the same. Accordingly, the relative performance or gain of BP over FIFO remains the same for each skill (i.e., 150% and approximately 7.1%, respectively). However, in contrast to the total or aggregated gain shown in Table II (approximately −16.7%), the normalized total or aggregated gain shown in Table IV is 28.6%. In Table IV, the effect of Simpson's Paradox has been eliminated, and the aggregated gain is appropriately positive just as the gain for the individual skills is positive.
- Following the determination of the relative performance corrected for the Yule-Simpson effect at
block 240,benchmarking method 200 may end. In some embodiments,benchmarking method 200 may return block 210 and/or block 220 to record and process further results of contact-agent interactions. - In some embodiments, the increase in performance of one pairing strategy (e.g., BP) over another (e.g., FIFO) may be used to determine an economic benefit. In turn, this economic benefit may be used to determine a fee or payment to a third-party vendor or other supplier of the beneficial pairing strategy (e.g., a vendor of a behavioral pairing module). Thus, correcting for the Yule-Simpson effect, the vendor's customers can be assured that they are charged a fair price, and the Yule-Simpson effect does not inadvertently lead to charging too much or too little by aggregating data in a statistically inappropriate way.
- In some embodiments, the
benchmarking module 140 may be configured to determine an aggregated performance gain that does not correct for the Yule-Simpson effect in addition to a normalized aggregated performance gain that does correct for the Yule-Simpson effect. For example,FIG. 3 shows a flow diagram ofbenchmarking method 300 according to embodiments of the present disclosure. Atblock 310,benchmarking method 300 may begin. - At
block 310, as inblock 210 ofbenchmarking method 200, results for a first plurality of contact-agent interactions paired using alternating pairing strategies may be recorded. Atblock 320, as inblock 220 ofbenchmarking method 200, results for a second plurality of contact-agent interactions paired using the alternating pairing strategies may be recorded. In some embodiments, blocks 310 and 320 may be performed simultaneously, as results for individual contact-agent interactions associated with either the first or second plurality of contact-agent interactions become available for recording or other processing. In some embodiments, contact-agent interactions may be grouped into more than two pluralities. - At
block 330, relative performance between the alternating pairing strategies may be determined without correcting for the Yule-Simpson effect. For example, as in Table II above, the total relative performance of BP to FIFO was a loss of approximately 16.7%. - At
block 340, relative performance between the alternating pairing strategies may be determined with correction for the Yule-Simpson effect. For example, as in Table IV above, the normalized total relative performance of BP to FIFO was a gain of 28.6%. - At
block 350, in some embodiments, an amount of relative performance mischaracterization attributable to the Yule-Simpson effect may be determined. For example, comparing the total gain in Table II to the normalized total gain in Table IV, the Yule-Simpson effect caused an approximately 45.3-point drop in relative performance of BP to FIFO, or a decrease of approximately 171.3%. In some embodiments, the output ofblocks - Following the output of gains or other data generated at
blocks benchmarking method 300 may end. In some embodiments,benchmarking method 300 may return block 310 and/or block 320 to record and process further results of contact-agent interactions. - At this point it should be noted that benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system in accordance with the present disclosure as described above may involve the processing of input data and the generation of output data to some extent. This input data processing and output data generation may be implemented in hardware or software. For example, specific electronic components may be employed in a behavioral pairing module or similar or related circuitry for implementing the functions associated with behavioral pairing in a contact center system in accordance with the present disclosure as described above. Alternatively, one or more processors operating in accordance with instructions may implement the functions associated with behavioral pairing in a contact center system in accordance with the present disclosure as described above. If such is the case, it is within the scope of the present disclosure that such instructions may be stored on one or more non-transitory processor readable storage media (e.g., a magnetic disk or other storage medium), or transmitted to one or more processors via one or more signals embodied in one or more carrier waves.
- The present disclosure is not to be limited in scope by the specific embodiments described herein. Indeed, other various embodiments of and modifications to the present disclosure, in addition to those described herein, will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art from the foregoing description and accompanying drawings. Thus, such other embodiments and modifications are intended to fall within the scope of the present disclosure. Further, although the present disclosure has been described herein in the context of at least one particular implementation in at least one particular environment for at least one particular purpose, those of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that its usefulness is not limited thereto and that the present disclosure may be beneficially implemented in any number of environments for any number of purposes. Accordingly, the claims set forth below should be construed in view of the full breadth and spirit of the present disclosure as described herein.
Claims (20)
1. A method for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system comprising:
determining, by at least one computer processor communicatively coupled to and configured to operate in the contact center system, a first benchmark for a first pairing strategy and a second pairing strategy, wherein the first benchmark is uncorrected for a Yule-Simpson effect;
determining, by the at least one computer processor, a second benchmark for the first and second pairing strategies, wherein the second benchmark is corrected for the Yule-Simpson effect;
outputting, by the at least one computer processor, an amount of relative performance difference between the first and second benchmarks attributable to the Yule-Simpson effect, wherein the amount of relative performance difference demonstrates that optimizing performance of the contact center system may be realized after correcting for the Yule-Simpson effect.
2. The method of claim 1 , wherein the first benchmark indicates that the second pairing strategy outperformed the first pairing strategy, and wherein the second benchmark indicates that the first pairing strategy outperformed the second pairing strategy.
3. The method of claim 1 , wherein the first benchmark indicates that the first pairing strategy outperformed the second pairing strategy by a first amount, and wherein the second benchmark indicates that the first pairing strategy outperformed the second pairing strategy by a second amount greater than the first amount.
4. The method of claim 1 , wherein the second benchmark is corrected for the Yule-Simpson effect by partitioning a plurality of contact-agent interactions into at least two subsets of contact-agent interaction results prior to aggregating the at least two subsets of contact-agent interaction results.
5. The method of claim 1 , wherein the first pairing strategy is a behavioral pairing (BP) strategy.
6. The method of claim 1 , wherein the second pairing strategy comprises at least one of:
a first-in, first-out (FIFO) pairing strategy,
a performance-based routing (PBR) strategy,
a highest-performing-agent pairing strategy,
a highest-performing-agent-for-contact-type pairing strategy,
a longest-available-agent pairing strategy,
a least-occupied-agent pairing strategy,
a randomly-selected-agent pairing strategy,
a randomly-selected-contact pairing strategy,
a fewest-contacts-taken-by-agent pairing strategy,
a sequentially-labeled-agent pairing strategy,
a longest-waiting-contact pairing strategy, and
a highest-priority-contact pairing strategy.
7. The method of claim 1 , wherein the Yule-Simpson effect was a result of an underlying partitioning of contact-agent interactions into at least the first and second pluralities of contact-agent interactions according to at least one of:
a plurality of time periods,
a plurality of agent skills,
a plurality of contact-agent assignment strategies (pairing strategies),
a plurality of contact center sites,
a plurality of contact center switches, and
a plurality of benchmarking schedules.
8. The method of claim 1 , wherein the contact center system alternates between applying the first and second pairing strategies more frequently than once per hour.
9. A system for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system comprising:
at least one computer processor communicatively coupled to and configured to operate in the contact center system, wherein the at least one computer processor is configured to:
determine a first benchmark for a first pairing strategy and a second pairing strategy, wherein the first benchmark is uncorrected for a Yule-Simpson effect;
determine a second benchmark for the first and second pairing strategies, wherein the second benchmark is corrected for the Yule-Simpson effect;
output an amount of relative performance difference between the first and second benchmarks attributable to the Yule-Simpson effect, wherein the amount of relative performance difference demonstrates that optimizing performance of the contact center system may be realized after correcting for the Yule-Simpson effect.
10. The system of claim 9 , wherein the first benchmark indicates that the second pairing strategy outperformed the first pairing strategy, and wherein the second benchmark indicates that the first pairing strategy outperformed the second pairing strategy.
11. The system of claim 9 , wherein the first benchmark indicates that the first pairing strategy outperformed the second pairing strategy by a first amount, and wherein the second benchmark indicates that the first pairing strategy outperformed the second pairing strategy by a second amount greater than the first amount.
12. The system of claim 9 , wherein the second benchmark is corrected for the Yule-Simpson effect by partitioning a plurality of contact-agent interactions into at least two subsets of contact-agent interaction results prior to aggregating the at least two subsets of contact-agent interaction results.
13. The system of claim 9 , wherein the first pairing strategy is a behavioral pairing (BP) strategy.
14. The system of claim 9 , wherein the second pairing strategy comprises at least one of:
a first-in, first-out (FIFO) pairing strategy,
a performance-based routing (PBR) strategy,
a highest-performing-agent pairing strategy,
a highest-performing-agent-for-contact-type pairing strategy,
a longest-available-agent pairing strategy,
a least-occupied-agent pairing strategy,
a randomly-selected-agent pairing strategy,
a randomly-selected-contact pairing strategy,
a fewest-contacts-taken-by-agent pairing strategy,
a sequentially-labeled-agent pairing strategy,
a longest-waiting-contact pairing strategy, and
a highest-priority-contact pairing strategy.
15. The system of claim 9 , wherein the Yule-Simpson effect was a result of an underlying partitioning of contact-agent interactions into at least the first and second pluralities of contact-agent interactions according to at least one of:
a plurality of time periods,
a plurality of agent skills,
a plurality of contact-agent assignment strategies (pairing strategies),
a plurality of contact center sites,
a plurality of contact center switches, and
a plurality of benchmarking schedules.
16. The system of claim 9 , wherein the contact center system alternates between applying the first and second pairing strategies more frequently than once per hour.
17. An article of manufacture for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system comprising:
a non-transitory computer processor readable medium; and
instructions stored on the medium;
wherein the instructions are configured to be readable from the medium by at least one computer processor communicatively coupled to and configured to operate in the contact center system and thereby cause the at least one computer processor to operate further so as to:
determine a first benchmark for a first pairing strategy and a second pairing strategy, wherein the first benchmark is uncorrected for a Yule-Simpson effect;
determine a second benchmark for the first and second pairing strategies, wherein the second benchmark is corrected for the Yule-Simpson effect;
output an amount of relative performance difference between the first and second benchmarks attributable to the Yule-Simpson effect, wherein the amount of relative performance difference demonstrates that optimizing performance of the contact center system may be realized after correcting for the Yule-Simpson effect.
18. The article of manufacture of claim 17 , wherein the first benchmark indicates that the second pairing strategy outperformed the first pairing strategy, and wherein the second benchmark indicates that the first pairing strategy outperformed the second pairing strategy.
19. The article of manufacture of claim 17 , wherein the first benchmark indicates that the first pairing strategy outperformed the second pairing strategy by a first amount, and wherein the second benchmark indicates that the first pairing strategy outperformed the second pairing strategy by a second amount greater than the first amount.
20. The article of manufacture of claim 17 , wherein the second benchmark is corrected for the Yule-Simpson effect by partitioning a plurality of contact-agent interactions into at least two subsets of contact-agent interaction results prior to aggregating the at least two subsets of contact-agent interaction results.
Priority Applications (1)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US17/076,335 US20210037139A1 (en) | 2016-08-30 | 2020-10-21 | Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system |
Applications Claiming Priority (5)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US15/251,591 US9692899B1 (en) | 2016-08-30 | 2016-08-30 | Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system |
US15/633,162 US10110745B2 (en) | 2016-08-30 | 2017-06-26 | Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system |
US16/114,511 US10419615B2 (en) | 2016-08-30 | 2018-08-28 | Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system |
US16/573,627 US10827073B2 (en) | 2016-08-30 | 2019-09-17 | Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system |
US17/076,335 US20210037139A1 (en) | 2016-08-30 | 2020-10-21 | Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system |
Related Parent Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US16/573,627 Continuation US10827073B2 (en) | 2016-08-30 | 2019-09-17 | Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system |
Publications (1)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
US20210037139A1 true US20210037139A1 (en) | 2021-02-04 |
Family
ID=59070329
Family Applications (5)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US15/251,591 Active US9692899B1 (en) | 2016-08-30 | 2016-08-30 | Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system |
US15/633,162 Active US10110745B2 (en) | 2016-08-30 | 2017-06-26 | Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system |
US16/114,511 Active US10419615B2 (en) | 2016-08-30 | 2018-08-28 | Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system |
US16/573,627 Active US10827073B2 (en) | 2016-08-30 | 2019-09-17 | Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system |
US17/076,335 Abandoned US20210037139A1 (en) | 2016-08-30 | 2020-10-21 | Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system |
Family Applications Before (4)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US15/251,591 Active US9692899B1 (en) | 2016-08-30 | 2016-08-30 | Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system |
US15/633,162 Active US10110745B2 (en) | 2016-08-30 | 2017-06-26 | Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system |
US16/114,511 Active US10419615B2 (en) | 2016-08-30 | 2018-08-28 | Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system |
US16/573,627 Active US10827073B2 (en) | 2016-08-30 | 2019-09-17 | Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system |
Country Status (9)
Country | Link |
---|---|
US (5) | US9692899B1 (en) |
EP (1) | EP3494527A1 (en) |
JP (2) | JP6585312B2 (en) |
KR (3) | KR102010718B1 (en) |
CN (1) | CN108780534B (en) |
AU (2) | AU2017319244A1 (en) |
CA (1) | CA3032490C (en) |
HK (1) | HK1256680A1 (en) |
WO (1) | WO2018042239A1 (en) |
Families Citing this family (10)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US8300798B1 (en) | 2006-04-03 | 2012-10-30 | Wai Wu | Intelligent communication routing system and method |
CN110033163B (en) * | 2016-04-18 | 2021-07-09 | 阿菲尼帝有限公司 | Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in contact center systems |
US11831808B2 (en) | 2016-12-30 | 2023-11-28 | Afiniti, Ltd. | Contact center system |
US10326882B2 (en) | 2016-12-30 | 2019-06-18 | Afiniti Europe Technologies Limited | Techniques for workforce management in a contact center system |
US10509669B2 (en) | 2017-11-08 | 2019-12-17 | Afiniti Europe Technologies Limited | Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a task assignment system |
WO2019092487A1 (en) | 2017-11-08 | 2019-05-16 | Afiniti Europe Technologies Limited | Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a task assignment system |
WO2021158439A1 (en) * | 2020-02-05 | 2021-08-12 | Afiniti, Ltd. | Techniques for behavioral pairing in a task assignment system with an external pairing system |
CA3166789A1 (en) * | 2020-02-05 | 2021-08-12 | Ain Chishty | Techniques for sharing control of assigning tasks between an external pairing system and a task assignment system with an internal pairing system |
CN114598592A (en) * | 2022-01-24 | 2022-06-07 | 浙江大华技术股份有限公司 | Seat cooperation system and method |
WO2023212062A1 (en) * | 2022-04-27 | 2023-11-02 | Afiniti, Ltd. | Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system |
Family Cites Families (215)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US5155763A (en) | 1990-12-11 | 1992-10-13 | International Business Machines Corp. | Look ahead method and apparatus for predictive dialing using a neural network |
US5206903A (en) | 1990-12-26 | 1993-04-27 | At&T Bell Laboratories | Automatic call distribution based on matching required skills with agents skills |
US5327490A (en) | 1991-02-19 | 1994-07-05 | Intervoice, Inc. | System and method for controlling call placement rate for telephone communication systems |
US5537470A (en) | 1994-04-06 | 1996-07-16 | At&T Corp. | Method and apparatus for handling in-bound telemarketing calls |
US6222919B1 (en) | 1994-09-12 | 2001-04-24 | Rockwell International Corporation | Method and system for routing incoming telephone calls to available agents based on agent skills |
US5594791A (en) | 1994-10-05 | 1997-01-14 | Inventions, Inc. | Method and apparatus for providing result-oriented customer service |
US6539336B1 (en) | 1996-12-12 | 2003-03-25 | Phatrat Technologies, Inc. | Sport monitoring system for determining airtime, speed, power absorbed and other factors such as drop distance |
EP0740450B1 (en) | 1995-04-24 | 2006-06-14 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and apparatus for skill-based routing in a call center |
US5907601A (en) | 1995-05-26 | 1999-05-25 | Eis International Inc. | Call pacing method |
US5702253A (en) | 1995-07-10 | 1997-12-30 | Bryce; Nathan K. | Personality testing apparatus and method |
US5926538A (en) | 1997-02-11 | 1999-07-20 | Genesys Telecommunications Labs, Inc | Method for routing calls to call centers based on statistical modeling of call behavior |
US5903641A (en) | 1997-01-28 | 1999-05-11 | Lucent Technologies Inc. | Automatic dynamic changing of agents' call-handling assignments |
US7020264B1 (en) | 1997-02-10 | 2006-03-28 | Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories, Inc. | Negotiated routing in telephony systems |
US6088444A (en) | 1997-04-11 | 2000-07-11 | Walker Asset Management Limited Partnership | Method and apparatus for value-based queuing of telephone calls |
US6044355A (en) | 1997-07-09 | 2000-03-28 | Iex Corporation | Skills-based scheduling for telephone call centers |
JP3311972B2 (en) | 1997-09-19 | 2002-08-05 | 富士通株式会社 | Telephone connection device, telephone connection method, and recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute the method |
US5903642A (en) | 1997-09-24 | 1999-05-11 | Call-A-Guide, Inc. | Method for eliminating telephone hold time |
US6134315A (en) | 1997-09-30 | 2000-10-17 | Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories, Inc. | Metadata-based network routing |
GB9723813D0 (en) | 1997-11-11 | 1998-01-07 | Mitel Corp | Call routing based on caller's mood |
US6052460A (en) | 1997-12-17 | 2000-04-18 | Lucent Technologies Inc. | Arrangement for equalizing levels of service among skills |
US6801520B2 (en) | 1998-02-17 | 2004-10-05 | Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories, Inc. | Queue prioritization based on competitive user input |
US6535492B2 (en) | 1999-12-01 | 2003-03-18 | Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories, Inc. | Method and apparatus for assigning agent-led chat sessions hosted by a communication center to available agents based on message load and agent skill-set |
CA2262044C (en) | 1998-04-09 | 2001-10-30 | Lucent Technologies Inc. | Optimizing call-center performance by using predictive data to distribute agents among calls |
US6173053B1 (en) | 1998-04-09 | 2001-01-09 | Avaya Technology Corp. | Optimizing call-center performance by using predictive data to distribute calls among agents |
US6233332B1 (en) | 1998-06-03 | 2001-05-15 | Avaya Technology Corp. | System for context based media independent communications processing |
US20020087393A1 (en) | 1998-07-31 | 2002-07-04 | Laurent Philonenko | Dynamically updated QoS parameterization according to expected business revenue |
US6389400B1 (en) | 1998-08-20 | 2002-05-14 | Sbc Technology Resources, Inc. | System and methods for intelligent routing of customer requests using customer and agent models |
US6535601B1 (en) | 1998-08-27 | 2003-03-18 | Avaya Technology Corp. | Skill-value queuing in a call center |
US6064731A (en) | 1998-10-29 | 2000-05-16 | Lucent Technologies Inc. | Arrangement for improving retention of call center's customers |
US7068775B1 (en) | 1998-12-02 | 2006-06-27 | Concerto Software, Inc. | System and method for managing a hold queue based on customer information retrieved from a customer database |
US20020111172A1 (en) | 2001-02-14 | 2002-08-15 | Dewolf Frederik M. | Location based profiling |
US6333979B1 (en) | 1998-12-17 | 2001-12-25 | At&T Corp. | Method and apparatus for assigning incoming communications to communications processing centers |
US6798876B1 (en) | 1998-12-29 | 2004-09-28 | At&T Corp. | Method and apparatus for intelligent routing of incoming calls to representatives in a call center |
US6434230B1 (en) | 1999-02-02 | 2002-08-13 | Avaya Technology Corp. | Rules-based queuing of calls to call-handling resources |
US6496580B1 (en) | 1999-02-22 | 2002-12-17 | Aspect Communications Corp. | Method and apparatus for servicing queued requests |
US6424709B1 (en) | 1999-03-22 | 2002-07-23 | Rockwell Electronic Commerce Corp. | Skill-based call routing |
US6519335B1 (en) | 1999-04-08 | 2003-02-11 | Lucent Technologies Inc. | Apparatus, method and system for personal telecommunication incoming call screening and alerting for call waiting applications |
US6445788B1 (en) | 1999-06-17 | 2002-09-03 | Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories, Inc. | Method and apparatus for providing fair access to agents in a communication center |
AU4945100A (en) | 1999-06-18 | 2001-01-09 | Shmuel Okon | Method and system for initiating conversations between callers having common interests |
US6829348B1 (en) | 1999-07-30 | 2004-12-07 | Convergys Cmg Utah, Inc. | System for customer contact information management and methods for using same |
US7092509B1 (en) | 1999-09-21 | 2006-08-15 | Microlog Corporation | Contact center system capable of handling multiple media types of contacts and method for using the same |
FR2799593B1 (en) | 1999-10-11 | 2002-05-31 | Cit Alcatel | METHOD FOR DISTRIBUTING CALLS |
US6389132B1 (en) | 1999-10-13 | 2002-05-14 | Avaya Technology Corp. | Multi-tasking, web-based call center |
US6775378B1 (en) | 1999-10-25 | 2004-08-10 | Concerto Software, Inc | Blended agent contact center |
US6832203B1 (en) | 1999-11-05 | 2004-12-14 | Cim, Ltd. | Skills based contact routing |
US20060233346A1 (en) | 1999-11-16 | 2006-10-19 | Knowlagent, Inc. | Method and system for prioritizing performance interventions |
US6408066B1 (en) | 1999-12-15 | 2002-06-18 | Lucent Technologies Inc. | ACD skill-based routing |
US6661889B1 (en) | 2000-01-18 | 2003-12-09 | Avaya Technology Corp. | Methods and apparatus for multi-variable work assignment in a call center |
US6724884B2 (en) | 2000-01-27 | 2004-04-20 | Avaya Technology Corp. | Call management system using fast response dynamic threshold adjustment |
US7050567B1 (en) | 2000-01-27 | 2006-05-23 | Avaya Technology Corp. | Call management system using dynamic queue position |
US6763104B1 (en) | 2000-02-24 | 2004-07-13 | Teltronics, Inc. | Call center IVR and ACD scripting method and graphical user interface |
US6714643B1 (en) | 2000-02-24 | 2004-03-30 | Siemens Information & Communication Networks, Inc. | System and method for implementing wait time estimation in automatic call distribution queues |
US6603854B1 (en) | 2000-02-25 | 2003-08-05 | Teltronics, Inc. | System and method for evaluating agents in call center |
US6587556B1 (en) | 2000-02-25 | 2003-07-01 | Teltronics, Inc. | Skills based routing method and system for call center |
US6707904B1 (en) | 2000-02-25 | 2004-03-16 | Teltronics, Inc. | Method and system for collecting reports for call center monitoring by supervisor |
US6324282B1 (en) | 2000-03-02 | 2001-11-27 | Knowlagent, Inc. | Method and system for delivery of individualized training to call center agents |
US20010032120A1 (en) | 2000-03-21 | 2001-10-18 | Stuart Robert Oden | Individual call agent productivity method and system |
US6956941B1 (en) | 2000-04-12 | 2005-10-18 | Austin Logistics Incorporated | Method and system for scheduling inbound inquiries |
US20020046030A1 (en) | 2000-05-18 | 2002-04-18 | Haritsa Jayant Ramaswamy | Method and apparatus for improved call handling and service based on caller's demographic information |
US7245719B2 (en) | 2000-06-30 | 2007-07-17 | Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. | Recording method and apparatus, optical disk, and computer-readable storage medium |
US6970821B1 (en) | 2000-09-26 | 2005-11-29 | Rockwell Electronic Commerce Technologies, Llc | Method of creating scripts by translating agent/customer conversations |
US6774932B1 (en) | 2000-09-26 | 2004-08-10 | Ewing Golf Associates, Llc | System for enhancing the televised broadcast of a golf game |
US6978006B1 (en) | 2000-10-12 | 2005-12-20 | Intervoice Limited Partnership | Resource management utilizing quantified resource attributes |
US6889222B1 (en) | 2000-12-26 | 2005-05-03 | Aspect Communications Corporation | Method and an apparatus for providing personalized service |
US6539271B2 (en) | 2000-12-27 | 2003-03-25 | General Electric Company | Quality management system with human-machine interface for industrial automation |
US6639976B1 (en) | 2001-01-09 | 2003-10-28 | Bellsouth Intellectual Property Corporation | Method for parity analysis and remedy calculation |
US6922466B1 (en) | 2001-03-05 | 2005-07-26 | Verizon Corporate Services Group Inc. | System and method for assessing a call center |
US7039166B1 (en) | 2001-03-05 | 2006-05-02 | Verizon Corporate Services Group Inc. | Apparatus and method for visually representing behavior of a user of an automated response system |
US20020138285A1 (en) | 2001-03-22 | 2002-09-26 | Decotiis Allen R. | System, method and article of manufacture for generating a model to analyze a propensity of customers to purchase products and services |
JP2002297900A (en) | 2001-03-30 | 2002-10-11 | Ibm Japan Ltd | Control system for reception by businesses, user side terminal device, reception side terminal device, management server queue monitoring device, method of allocating reception side terminals, and storage medium |
US7478051B2 (en) | 2001-04-02 | 2009-01-13 | Illah Nourbakhsh | Method and apparatus for long-range planning |
US6647390B2 (en) | 2001-04-30 | 2003-11-11 | General Electric Company | System and methods for standardizing data for design review comparisons |
US6895083B1 (en) | 2001-05-02 | 2005-05-17 | Verizon Corporate Services Group Inc. | System and method for maximum benefit routing |
CA2447096C (en) | 2001-05-17 | 2018-06-12 | Bay Bridge Decision Technologies, Inc. | System and method for generating forecasts and analysis of contact center behavior for planning purposes |
US6842515B2 (en) | 2001-06-12 | 2005-01-11 | Rockwell Electronic Commerce Technologies, Llc | Multi-site responsibility-based routing |
US6954480B2 (en) | 2001-06-13 | 2005-10-11 | Time Domain Corporation | Method and apparatus for improving received signal quality in an impulse radio system |
US7110525B1 (en) | 2001-06-25 | 2006-09-19 | Toby Heller | Agent training sensitive call routing system |
US6782093B2 (en) | 2001-06-27 | 2004-08-24 | Blue Pumpkin Software, Inc. | Graphical method and system for visualizing performance levels in time-varying environment |
US6856680B2 (en) | 2001-09-24 | 2005-02-15 | Rockwell Electronic Commerce Technologies, Llc | Contact center autopilot algorithms |
JP2003115932A (en) * | 2001-10-05 | 2003-04-18 | Fujitsu Ltd | Resource assignment control method for autonomous distribution system |
GB2383915B (en) | 2001-11-23 | 2005-09-28 | Canon Kk | Method and apparatus for generating models of individuals |
US7103172B2 (en) | 2001-12-12 | 2006-09-05 | International Business Machines Corporation | Managing caller profiles across multiple hold queues according to authenticated caller identifiers |
US7245716B2 (en) | 2001-12-12 | 2007-07-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | Controlling hold queue position adjustment |
JP2003187061A (en) | 2001-12-19 | 2003-07-04 | Fuji Mach Mfg Co Ltd | User support system, server device of user support system, operator selecting program and operator selecting method of user support system |
US6925155B2 (en) | 2002-01-18 | 2005-08-02 | Sbc Properties, L.P. | Method and system for routing calls based on a language preference |
US20030169870A1 (en) | 2002-03-05 | 2003-09-11 | Michael Stanford | Automatic call distribution |
US7023979B1 (en) | 2002-03-07 | 2006-04-04 | Wai Wu | Telephony control system with intelligent call routing |
US7336779B2 (en) | 2002-03-15 | 2008-02-26 | Avaya Technology Corp. | Topical dynamic chat |
US7379922B2 (en) | 2002-04-29 | 2008-05-27 | Avanous, Inc. | Pricing model system and method |
JP4142912B2 (en) | 2002-07-19 | 2008-09-03 | 富士通株式会社 | Transaction distribution program |
US7457403B2 (en) | 2002-08-08 | 2008-11-25 | Rockwell Electronic Commerce Technologies, Llc | Method and apparatus for determining a real time average speed of answer in an automatic call distribution system |
US6754331B2 (en) | 2002-09-19 | 2004-06-22 | Nortel Networks Limited | Determining statistics about the behavior of a call center at a past time instant |
US6937715B2 (en) | 2002-09-26 | 2005-08-30 | Nortel Networks Limited | Contact center management |
US20040098274A1 (en) | 2002-11-15 | 2004-05-20 | Dezonno Anthony J. | System and method for predicting customer contact outcomes |
US6847714B2 (en) | 2002-11-19 | 2005-01-25 | Avaya Technology Corp. | Accent-based matching of a communicant with a call-center agent |
US20040210475A1 (en) | 2002-11-25 | 2004-10-21 | Starnes S. Renee | Variable compensation tool and system for customer service agents |
US7184540B2 (en) | 2002-11-26 | 2007-02-27 | Rockwell Electronic Commerce Technologies, Llc | Personality based matching of callers to agents in a communication system |
GB0227946D0 (en) | 2002-11-29 | 2003-01-08 | Univ East Anglia | Signal enhancement |
US7545925B2 (en) | 2002-12-06 | 2009-06-09 | At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. | Method and system for improved routing of repair calls to a call center |
JP2004227228A (en) | 2003-01-22 | 2004-08-12 | Kazunori Fujisawa | Order accepting system by portable telephone |
US7418095B2 (en) | 2003-03-06 | 2008-08-26 | At&T Knowledge Ventures, L.P. | System and method for providing caller activities while in queue |
US7676034B1 (en) | 2003-03-07 | 2010-03-09 | Wai Wu | Method and system for matching entities in an auction |
EP1629359A4 (en) | 2003-04-07 | 2008-01-09 | Sevenecho Llc | Method, system and software for digital media narrative personalization |
US7877265B2 (en) | 2003-05-13 | 2011-01-25 | At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. | System and method for automated customer feedback |
US7050566B2 (en) | 2003-06-13 | 2006-05-23 | Assurant, Inc. | Call processing system |
US7725339B1 (en) | 2003-07-07 | 2010-05-25 | Ac2 Solutions, Inc. | Contact center scheduling using integer programming |
US20050013428A1 (en) | 2003-07-17 | 2005-01-20 | Walters James Frederick | Contact center optimization program |
US7158628B2 (en) | 2003-08-20 | 2007-01-02 | Knowlagent, Inc. | Method and system for selecting a preferred contact center agent based on agent proficiency and performance and contact center state |
US8010607B2 (en) | 2003-08-21 | 2011-08-30 | Nortel Networks Limited | Management of queues in contact centres |
US7170991B2 (en) | 2003-08-25 | 2007-01-30 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Method and system for utilizing proxy designation in a call system |
US7315617B2 (en) | 2003-08-25 | 2008-01-01 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Method and system for managing calls of an automatic call distributor |
US20050071223A1 (en) | 2003-09-30 | 2005-03-31 | Vivek Jain | Method, system and computer program product for dynamic marketing strategy development |
US7231034B1 (en) | 2003-10-21 | 2007-06-12 | Acqueon Technologies, Inc. | “Pull” architecture contact center |
US20050129212A1 (en) | 2003-12-12 | 2005-06-16 | Parker Jane S. | Workforce planning system incorporating historic call-center related data |
US7027586B2 (en) | 2003-12-18 | 2006-04-11 | Sbc Knowledge Ventures, L.P. | Intelligently routing customer communications |
US7899177B1 (en) | 2004-01-12 | 2011-03-01 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Call-routing system and method |
US7353388B1 (en) | 2004-02-09 | 2008-04-01 | Avaya Technology Corp. | Key server for securing IP telephony registration, control, and maintenance |
AR047800A1 (en) | 2004-02-13 | 2006-02-22 | Citibank Na | METHOD AND PROVISION TO CARRY OUT THE ANALYSIS OF CUSTOMER NEEDS, PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT AND CUSTOMER FOLLOW-UP BASED ON YOUR PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS |
US7349535B2 (en) | 2004-03-03 | 2008-03-25 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Method and system for automatic call distribution based on location information for call center agents |
US8000989B1 (en) | 2004-03-31 | 2011-08-16 | Avaya Inc. | Using true value in routing work items to resources |
US7734032B1 (en) | 2004-03-31 | 2010-06-08 | Avaya Inc. | Contact center and method for tracking and acting on one and done customer contacts |
US8126133B1 (en) | 2004-04-01 | 2012-02-28 | Liveops, Inc. | Results-based routing of electronic communications |
US20050286709A1 (en) | 2004-06-28 | 2005-12-29 | Steve Horton | Customer service marketing |
US8234141B1 (en) | 2004-09-27 | 2012-07-31 | Avaya Inc. | Dynamic work assignment strategies based on multiple aspects of agent proficiency |
US8180043B2 (en) | 2004-12-07 | 2012-05-15 | Aspect Software, Inc. | Method and apparatus for customer key routing |
US20060184040A1 (en) | 2004-12-09 | 2006-08-17 | Keller Kurtis P | Apparatus, system and method for optically analyzing a substrate |
US20060124113A1 (en) | 2004-12-10 | 2006-06-15 | Roberts Forest G Sr | Marine engine fuel cooling system |
US7398224B2 (en) | 2005-03-22 | 2008-07-08 | Kim A. Cooper | Performance motivation systems and methods for contact centers |
WO2006102270A2 (en) | 2005-03-22 | 2006-09-28 | Cooper Kim A | Performance motivation systems and methods for contact centers |
US20060222164A1 (en) | 2005-04-04 | 2006-10-05 | Saeed Contractor | Simultaneous usage of agent and service parameters |
US8885812B2 (en) | 2005-05-17 | 2014-11-11 | Oracle International Corporation | Dynamic customer satisfaction routing |
US7773736B2 (en) | 2005-05-18 | 2010-08-10 | At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. | VPN PRI OSN independent authorization levels |
US7995717B2 (en) | 2005-05-18 | 2011-08-09 | Mattersight Corporation | Method and system for analyzing separated voice data of a telephonic communication between a customer and a contact center by applying a psychological behavioral model thereto |
US8094790B2 (en) | 2005-05-18 | 2012-01-10 | Mattersight Corporation | Method and software for training a customer service representative by analysis of a telephonic interaction between a customer and a contact center |
US7837851B2 (en) | 2005-05-25 | 2010-11-23 | Applied Materials, Inc. | In-situ profile measurement in an electroplating process |
JP4068629B2 (en) | 2005-06-08 | 2008-03-26 | 富士通株式会社 | Incoming call distribution program |
US20070025540A1 (en) | 2005-07-07 | 2007-02-01 | Roger Travis | Call center routing based on talkativeness |
US8175253B2 (en) | 2005-07-07 | 2012-05-08 | At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. | System and method for automated performance monitoring for a call servicing system |
US7904144B2 (en) | 2005-08-02 | 2011-03-08 | Brainscope Company, Inc. | Method for assessing brain function and portable automatic brain function assessment apparatus |
US8577015B2 (en) | 2005-09-16 | 2013-11-05 | Avaya Inc. | Method and apparatus for the automated delivery of notifications to contacts based on predicted work prioritization |
US20070219816A1 (en) | 2005-10-14 | 2007-09-20 | Leviathan Entertainment, Llc | System and Method of Prioritizing Items in a Queue |
US7907718B2 (en) | 2005-11-18 | 2011-03-15 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | VoIP call routing |
US7864944B2 (en) | 2005-11-29 | 2011-01-04 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Optimal call speed for call center agents |
WO2007065122A2 (en) | 2005-11-30 | 2007-06-07 | On-Q Telecom Systems Co., Inc. | Virtual personal assistant for handling calls in a communication system |
US7826597B2 (en) | 2005-12-09 | 2010-11-02 | At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. | Methods and apparatus to handle customer support requests |
US20070136342A1 (en) | 2005-12-13 | 2007-06-14 | Sap Ag | Processing a user inquiry |
DE102005061434A1 (en) | 2005-12-22 | 2007-06-28 | Epoq Gmbh | Call center agent-optimized operation method for use by control unit, involves selecting agents in real-time such that characteristics of customer datasets of customers are correlated with characteristics of agent datasets of agents |
US20070174111A1 (en) | 2006-01-24 | 2007-07-26 | International Business Machines Corporation | Evaluating a performance of a customer support resource in the context of a peer group |
US8112298B2 (en) | 2006-02-22 | 2012-02-07 | Verint Americas, Inc. | Systems and methods for workforce optimization |
US8108237B2 (en) | 2006-02-22 | 2012-01-31 | Verint Americas, Inc. | Systems for integrating contact center monitoring, training and scheduling |
US7593522B2 (en) | 2006-03-09 | 2009-09-22 | At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. | Call center user interface and methods of using same |
US8300798B1 (en) | 2006-04-03 | 2012-10-30 | Wai Wu | Intelligent communication routing system and method |
US8331549B2 (en) | 2006-05-01 | 2012-12-11 | Verint Americas Inc. | System and method for integrated workforce and quality management |
US7856095B2 (en) | 2006-05-04 | 2010-12-21 | Interactive Intelligence, Inc. | System and method for providing a baseline for quality metrics in a contact center |
JP2007324708A (en) | 2006-05-30 | 2007-12-13 | Nec Corp | Telephone answering method, call center system, program for call center, and program recording medium |
US7961866B1 (en) | 2006-06-02 | 2011-06-14 | West Corporation | Method and computer readable medium for geographic agent routing |
US20080046386A1 (en) | 2006-07-03 | 2008-02-21 | Roberto Pieraccinii | Method for making optimal decisions in automated customer care |
EP2052358A2 (en) | 2006-07-17 | 2009-04-29 | Open Pricer | Customer centric revenue management |
US20080065476A1 (en) | 2006-09-07 | 2008-03-13 | Loyalty Builders, Inc. | Online direct marketing system |
US20090043671A1 (en) | 2006-09-14 | 2009-02-12 | Henrik Johansson | System and method for network-based purchasing |
US8223953B2 (en) | 2006-11-17 | 2012-07-17 | At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. | Methods, systems, and computer program products for rule-based direction of customer service calls |
US7577246B2 (en) | 2006-12-20 | 2009-08-18 | Nice Systems Ltd. | Method and system for automatic quality evaluation |
US7940917B2 (en) | 2007-01-24 | 2011-05-10 | International Business Machines Corporation | Managing received calls |
US20080199000A1 (en) | 2007-02-21 | 2008-08-21 | Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. | System and method for monitoring agents' performance in a call center |
EP2137831A1 (en) | 2007-03-16 | 2009-12-30 | Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) | Method and apparatus for providing electrical power to a broadband digital subscriber line access |
CN100562045C (en) * | 2007-06-26 | 2009-11-18 | 中兴通讯股份有限公司 | Virtual call center system and virtual call method |
US8270593B2 (en) | 2007-10-01 | 2012-09-18 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Call routing using voice signature and hearing characteristics |
US8249245B2 (en) | 2007-11-13 | 2012-08-21 | Amazon Technologies, Inc. | System and method for automated call distribution |
US9712679B2 (en) | 2008-01-28 | 2017-07-18 | Afiniti International Holdings, Ltd. | Systems and methods for routing callers to an agent in a contact center |
US8718271B2 (en) | 2008-01-28 | 2014-05-06 | Satmap International Holdings Limited | Call routing methods and systems based on multiple variable standardized scoring |
US20090190745A1 (en) | 2008-01-28 | 2009-07-30 | The Resource Group International Ltd | Pooling callers for a call center routing system |
US20090190750A1 (en) | 2008-01-28 | 2009-07-30 | The Resource Group International Ltd | Routing callers out of queue order for a call center routing system |
US8879715B2 (en) | 2012-03-26 | 2014-11-04 | Satmap International Holdings Limited | Call mapping systems and methods using variance algorithm (VA) and/or distribution compensation |
US8781100B2 (en) | 2008-01-28 | 2014-07-15 | Satmap International Holdings Limited | Probability multiplier process for call center routing |
US9774740B2 (en) * | 2008-01-28 | 2017-09-26 | Afiniti Europe Technologies Limited | Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system |
US9300802B1 (en) | 2008-01-28 | 2016-03-29 | Satmap International Holdings Limited | Techniques for behavioral pairing in a contact center system |
US10567586B2 (en) | 2008-11-06 | 2020-02-18 | Afiniti Europe Technologies Limited | Pooling callers for matching to agents based on pattern matching algorithms |
HUE044744T2 (en) | 2008-01-28 | 2019-11-28 | Afiniti Int Holdings Ltd | Routing callers from a set of callers in an out of order sequence |
US20090232294A1 (en) | 2008-01-28 | 2009-09-17 | Qiaobing Xie | Skipping a caller in queue for a call routing center |
US8670548B2 (en) | 2008-01-28 | 2014-03-11 | Satmap International Holdings Limited | Jumping callers held in queue for a call center routing system |
US8903079B2 (en) | 2008-01-28 | 2014-12-02 | Satmap International Holdings Limited | Routing callers from a set of callers based on caller data |
US8824658B2 (en) | 2008-11-06 | 2014-09-02 | Satmap International Holdings Limited | Selective mapping of callers in a call center routing system |
JP4683308B2 (en) * | 2008-03-13 | 2011-05-18 | ソニー株式会社 | Learning device, learning method, and program |
US8938059B2 (en) | 2008-03-28 | 2015-01-20 | Avaya Inc. | System and method for displaying call flows and call statistics |
US8200189B2 (en) | 2008-06-19 | 2012-06-12 | Verizon Patent And Licensing Inc. | Voice portal to voice portal VoIP transfer |
US20100020961A1 (en) | 2008-07-28 | 2010-01-28 | The Resource Group International Ltd | Routing callers to agents based on time effect data |
US8644490B2 (en) | 2008-08-29 | 2014-02-04 | Satmap International Holdings Limited | Shadow queue for callers in a performance/pattern matching based call routing system |
US8781106B2 (en) | 2008-08-29 | 2014-07-15 | Satmap International Holdings Limited | Agent satisfaction data for call routing based on pattern matching algorithm |
US8295468B2 (en) | 2008-08-29 | 2012-10-23 | International Business Machines Corporation | Optimized method to select and retrieve a contact center transaction from a set of transactions stored in a queuing mechanism |
CN109151233B (en) | 2008-08-29 | 2021-10-08 | 阿菲利蒂有限公司 | Call routing method and system based on multivariate standardized scoring and shadow queue |
US20100086120A1 (en) * | 2008-10-02 | 2010-04-08 | Compucredit Intellectual Property Holdings Corp. Ii | Systems and methods for call center routing |
US8140441B2 (en) | 2008-10-20 | 2012-03-20 | International Business Machines Corporation | Workflow management in a global support organization |
AU2009311534B2 (en) | 2008-11-06 | 2014-04-24 | Afiniti, Ltd. | Two step routing procedure in a call center |
US8472611B2 (en) | 2008-11-06 | 2013-06-25 | The Resource Group International Ltd. | Balancing multiple computer models in a call center routing system |
US20100111288A1 (en) | 2008-11-06 | 2010-05-06 | Afzal Hassan | Time to answer selector and advisor for call routing center |
US8634542B2 (en) | 2008-12-09 | 2014-01-21 | Satmap International Holdings Limited | Separate pattern matching algorithms and computer models based on available caller data |
US8295471B2 (en) | 2009-01-16 | 2012-10-23 | The Resource Group International | Selective mapping of callers in a call-center routing system based on individual agent settings |
US8259924B2 (en) | 2009-09-21 | 2012-09-04 | Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories, Inc. | System for creation and dynamic management of incoming interactions |
MY148164A (en) | 2009-12-31 | 2013-03-15 | Petroliam Nasional Berhad Petronas | Method and apparatus for monitoring performance and anticipate failures of plant instrumentation |
US8306212B2 (en) | 2010-02-19 | 2012-11-06 | Avaya Inc. | Time-based work assignments in automated contact distribution |
US8724797B2 (en) | 2010-08-26 | 2014-05-13 | Satmap International Holdings Limited | Estimating agent performance in a call routing center system |
US8699694B2 (en) | 2010-08-26 | 2014-04-15 | Satmap International Holdings Limited | Precalculated caller-agent pairs for a call center routing system |
US8750488B2 (en) * | 2010-08-31 | 2014-06-10 | Satmap International Holdings Limited | Predicted call time as routing variable in a call routing center system |
US8913736B2 (en) | 2011-01-18 | 2014-12-16 | Avaya Inc. | System and method for delivering a contact to a preferred agent after a set wait period |
US20130051545A1 (en) | 2011-08-25 | 2013-02-28 | Bank Of America Corporation | Call center system for dynamic determination of appropriate representative |
JP5533844B2 (en) | 2011-11-11 | 2014-06-25 | 沖電気工業株式会社 | COMMUNICATION DEVICE, COMMUNICATION METHOD, AND PROGRAM |
US8565410B2 (en) | 2012-03-26 | 2013-10-22 | The Resource Group International, Ltd. | Call mapping systems and methods using variance algorithm (VA) and/or distribution compensation |
US8879697B2 (en) | 2012-08-10 | 2014-11-04 | Avaya Inc. | System and method for determining call importance using social network context |
US8718269B2 (en) | 2012-09-20 | 2014-05-06 | Avaya Inc. | Risks for waiting for well-matched |
US8792630B2 (en) | 2012-09-24 | 2014-07-29 | Satmap International Holdings Limited | Use of abstracted data in pattern matching system |
US9042540B2 (en) | 2012-10-30 | 2015-05-26 | Teletech Holdings, Inc. | Method for providing support using answer engine and dialog rules |
CN103905659B (en) * | 2012-12-28 | 2017-11-07 | 北京大唐高鸿数据网络技术有限公司 | The method for testing the intelligent traffic queuing system function in call center |
US8995647B2 (en) | 2013-05-20 | 2015-03-31 | Xerox Corporation | Method and apparatus for routing a call using a hybrid call routing scheme with real-time automatic adjustment |
US9106750B2 (en) | 2013-08-20 | 2015-08-11 | Avaya Inc. | Facilitating a contact center agent to select a contact in a contact center queue |
CN107135320B (en) * | 2017-05-02 | 2019-12-17 | 深圳市中讯网联科技有限公司 | method for processing information by contact center and contact center |
-
2016
- 2016-08-30 US US15/251,591 patent/US9692899B1/en active Active
-
2017
- 2017-05-23 CA CA3032490A patent/CA3032490C/en active Active
- 2017-05-23 KR KR1020187033750A patent/KR102010718B1/en active IP Right Grant
- 2017-05-23 EP EP17734814.1A patent/EP3494527A1/en not_active Ceased
- 2017-05-23 CN CN201780016745.9A patent/CN108780534B/en active Active
- 2017-05-23 JP JP2018552074A patent/JP6585312B2/en active Active
- 2017-05-23 AU AU2017319244A patent/AU2017319244A1/en not_active Abandoned
- 2017-05-23 KR KR1020197023053A patent/KR102116825B1/en active IP Right Grant
- 2017-05-23 WO PCT/IB2017/000720 patent/WO2018042239A1/en unknown
- 2017-05-23 KR KR1020207014851A patent/KR102312147B1/en active IP Right Grant
- 2017-06-26 US US15/633,162 patent/US10110745B2/en active Active
-
2018
- 2018-08-28 US US16/114,511 patent/US10419615B2/en active Active
- 2018-12-06 HK HK18115663.4A patent/HK1256680A1/en unknown
-
2019
- 2019-07-31 AU AU2019210551A patent/AU2019210551A1/en not_active Abandoned
- 2019-09-04 JP JP2019160991A patent/JP6630019B2/en active Active
- 2019-09-17 US US16/573,627 patent/US10827073B2/en active Active
-
2020
- 2020-10-21 US US17/076,335 patent/US20210037139A1/en not_active Abandoned
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
US10110745B2 (en) | 2018-10-23 |
KR20190095539A (en) | 2019-08-14 |
JP6630019B2 (en) | 2020-01-15 |
KR20180130583A (en) | 2018-12-07 |
US9692899B1 (en) | 2017-06-27 |
US20180063330A1 (en) | 2018-03-01 |
KR102010718B1 (en) | 2019-08-13 |
KR20200063254A (en) | 2020-06-04 |
CA3032490C (en) | 2023-10-03 |
CA3032490A1 (en) | 2018-03-08 |
CN108780534B (en) | 2020-03-17 |
EP3494527A1 (en) | 2019-06-12 |
KR102312147B1 (en) | 2021-10-13 |
AU2017319244A1 (en) | 2018-08-02 |
HK1256680A1 (en) | 2019-10-04 |
KR102116825B1 (en) | 2020-06-02 |
US20200014800A1 (en) | 2020-01-09 |
AU2019210551A1 (en) | 2019-08-15 |
US10419615B2 (en) | 2019-09-17 |
US10827073B2 (en) | 2020-11-03 |
CN108780534A (en) | 2018-11-09 |
WO2018042239A1 (en) | 2018-03-08 |
JP2019213220A (en) | 2019-12-12 |
US20180367671A1 (en) | 2018-12-20 |
JP2019516177A (en) | 2019-06-13 |
JP6585312B2 (en) | 2019-10-02 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
US20210037139A1 (en) | Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system | |
US20200351402A1 (en) | Techniques for estimating expected performance in a task assignment system | |
US20200382645A1 (en) | Techniques for behavioral pairing model evaluation in a contact center system | |
US20230283717A1 (en) | Techniques for benchmarking performance in a contact center system |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
STPP | Information on status: patent application and granting procedure in general |
Free format text: APPLICATION DISPATCHED FROM PREEXAM, NOT YET DOCKETED |
|
STPP | Information on status: patent application and granting procedure in general |
Free format text: DOCKETED NEW CASE - READY FOR EXAMINATION |
|
STPP | Information on status: patent application and granting procedure in general |
Free format text: NON FINAL ACTION MAILED |
|
STCB | Information on status: application discontinuation |
Free format text: ABANDONED -- FAILURE TO RESPOND TO AN OFFICE ACTION |