Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/AU2017278987A1/en
Timestamp: 2019-08-23 15:53:19
Document Index: 65455610

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application No. 15', 'Application No. 15', 'art 400', 'art 400', 'art 400', 'art 500', 'art 500', 'art 600', 'art 600', 'art 700', 'arts 400', 'Application No. 14']

AU2017278987A1 - Techniques for benchmarking performance in a contact center system - Google Patents
AU2017278987A1
AU2017278987A1 AU2017278987A AU2017278987A AU2017278987A1 AU 2017278987 A1 AU2017278987 A1 AU 2017278987A1 AU 2017278987 A AU2017278987 A AU 2017278987A AU 2017278987 A AU2017278987 A AU 2017278987A AU 2017278987 A1 AU2017278987 A1 AU 2017278987A1
AU2017278987A
2016-06-08 Priority to US15/176,899 priority Critical
2016-06-08 Priority to US15/176,899 priority patent/US10142473B1/en
2017-05-23 Application filed by Afiniti Europe Technologies Ltd filed Critical Afiniti Europe Technologies Ltd
2017-05-23 Priority to PCT/IB2017/000694 priority patent/WO2017212328A1/en
2018-08-02 Publication of AU2017278987A1 publication Critical patent/AU2017278987A1/en
Techniques for benchmarking performance in a contact center system are disclosed. In one particular embodiment, the techniques may be realized as a method for benchmarking contact center system performance comprising cycling, by at least one computer processor configured to perform contact center operations, between a first contact-agent pairing strategy and a second contact-agent pairing strategy for pairing contacts with agents in the contact center system; determining an agent-utilization bias in the first contact-agent pairing strategy comprising a difference between a first agent utilization of the first contact-agent pairing strategy and a balanced agent utilization; and determining a relative performance of the second contact-agent pairing strategy compared to the first contact-agent pairing strategy- based on the agent-utilization bias in the first contact-agent pairing strategy.
TECHNIQUES FOR BENCHMARKING PERFORMANCE IN A CONTACT
This international patent application claims priority to U S. Patent Application No. 15/176,899, Hied June 8, 2016, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety as if fully set forth herein.
BACKGROUND OF THE DISCLOSURE A typical contact center algorithmically assigns contacts arriving at the contact center to agents available to handle those contacts. At times, the contact center may have agents available and waiting for assignment to inbound or outbound contacts (e.g., telephone calls, Internet chat sessions, email). At other times, the contact center may have contacts waiting in one or more queues for an agent to become available for assignment.
When a contact center changes from using one type of pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO) to another type of pairing strategy (e.g., PER), some agents may be available to receive a contact, while other agents may be on a call. If the average agent performance over time is unbalanced, the overall performance of one type of pairing strategy may be unfairly influenced by the other type of pairing strategy.
In view7 of the foregoing, it may be understood that there may be a need for a system that enables benchmarking contact center system performance including transition management of alternative routing strategies to detect and account for unbalanced average agent performance among alternative pairing strategies.
Techniques for benchmarking performance in a contact center system are disclosed. In one particular embodiment, the techniques may be realized as a method for benchmarking contact center system performance comprising cycling, by at least one computer processor configured to perform contact center operations, between a first contact-agent pairing strategy and a second contact-agent pairing strategy7 for pairing contacts with agents in the contact center system, determining, by the at least one computer processor, an agent-utilization bias in the first contact-agent pairing strategy comprising a difference between a first agent utilization of the first contact-agent pairing strategy and a balanced agent utilization, and determining, by the at least one computer processor, a relative performance of the second contact-agent pairing strategy compared to the first contact-agent pairing strategy based on the agent-utilization bias in the first contact-agent pairing strategy.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the method may further include determining, by the at least one computer processor, an average availability of at least one of a plurality of agents during at least one transition from the first contact -agent pairing strategy to the second contact-agent pairing strategy.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the first contact -agent pairing strategy may be a performance-based routing strategy.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the second contact-agent pairing strategy7 may be a behavioral pairing strategy.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the second contact -agent pairing strategy may be a hybrid behavioral pairing strategy, and the hybrid behavioral pairing strategy may be biased toward a performance-based routing strategy.
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 schematic representation of an agent transition table according to embodiments of the present disclosure, FIG. 3 shows a schematic representation of an agent transition table according to embodiments of the present disclosure. FIG. 4 depicts a schematic representation of an agent transition chart according to embodiments of the present disclosure. FIG. 5 depicts a schematic representation of an agent transition chart according to embodiments of the present disclosure. FIG. 6 shows a schematic representation of an agent transition chart according to embodiments of the present disclosure. FIG. 7 shows a schematic representation of an agent transition chart according to embodiments of the present disclosure. FIG. 8 shows a flow diagram of a benchmarking transition management method according to embodiments of the present disclosure.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION A typical contact center algorithmically assigns contacts arriving at the contact center to agents available to handle those contacts. At times, the contact center may have agents available and waiting for assignment to inbound or outbound contacts (e.g., telephone calls, internet chat sessions, email). At other times, the contact center may have contacts waiting in one or more queues for an agent to become available for assignment.
In some Apical contact centers, contacts are assigned to agents ordered based on the time when those agents became available, and agents are assigned to contacts ordered based on time of arrival. This strategy may be referred to as a “first-in, first-out”, “FIFO”, or “round-robin” strategy. For example, a longest-available agent pairing strategy preferably selects the available agent who has been available for the longest time.
For yet another example, some contact centers may use a “behavioral pairing” or “BP” strategy, under which contacts and agents may be deliberately (preferentially) paired in a fashion that enables the assignment of subsequent contact-agent pairs such that when the benefits of all the assignments under a BP stra tegy are totaled they may exceed those of FIFO and PBR strategies. BP is designed to encourage balanced utilization of agents within a skill queue w'hile nevertheless simultaneously improving overall contact center performance beyond what FIFO or PBR methods will allow'. This is a remarkable achievement inasmuch as BP acts on the same calls and same agents as FIFO or PBR methods, utilizes agents approximately evenly as FIFO provides, and yet improves overall contact center performance. BP is described in, e.g., U.S. Patent No. 9,300,802, which is incorporated by reference herein. Additional information about these and other features regarding the pairing or matching modules (sometimes also referred to as “SATMAP”, “routing system”, “routing engine”, etc.) is described in, for example, U.S. Patent No. 8,879,715, which is incorporated by reference herein.
In some embodiments, a contact center may switch (or “cycle”) periodically among at least two different pairing strategies (e.g., between FIFO and PBR; between PBR and BP; among FIFO, PBR, and BP). Additionally, the outcome of each contact-agent interaction may be recorded along with an identification of which pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO, PBR, or BP) had been used to assign that particular contact-agent pair. By tracking which interactions produced which results, the contact center may measure the performance attributable to a first strategy (e.g., FIFO) and the performance attributable to a second strategy (e.g., PBR). In this way, the relative performance of one strategy may be benchmarked against the other. The contact center may, over many periods of switching between different pairing strategies, more reliably attribute performance gain to one strategy or the other. Additional information about these and other features regarding benchmarking pairing strategies is described in, for example, U.S. Patent Application No. 15/131,915, filed April 20, 2016.
When a contact center changes from using one type of pairing strategy (e.g., PBR) to another type of pairing strategy (e.g., BP), some agents may be available to receive a contact, while other agents may be interacting with a contact (e.g., on a call). If the average agent performance at transitions over time is unbalanced, the overall performance of one type of pairing strategy may be unfairly influenced by the other type of pairing strategy. For example, when a contact center pairs contacts and agents using PBR, high-performing agents are more likely to be busy interacting with a contact, while low-performing agents are more likely to be idle. Thus, at transitions from PBR to another pairing strategy such as BP, the average performance of available agents at transitions over time is likely to be below the average performance of all of the agents including both the available agents and the busy agents. FIG. 1 shows a block diagram of a contact center system according to embodiments of the present disclosure. As shown in FIG. 1, the contact center system 100 may include a central switch 110. The central switch 1.10 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.
In the example of FIG. 1, the central switch 110 routes contacts to one of two contact centers via contact center switch 120A and contact center switch 120B, respectively. Each of the contact center switches 120A and 120B are shown with two agents each. Agents 130A and 13OB may be logged into contact center switch 120A, and agents 130C and 130D may be logged into contact center switch 120B.
The contact center system 100 may also be communicatively coupled to an integrated service from, for example, a third party vendor. In the example of FIG. 1, transition management 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 120A, or contact center switch 120B, In some embodiments, switches of the contact center system 100 may be communicatively coupled to multiple benchmarking modules. In some embodiments, transition management module 140 may be embedded within a component of a contact center system (e.g., embedded in or otherwise integrated with a switch). The transition management module 140 may receive information from a switch (e.g., contact center switch 120A) about agents logged into the switch (e.g., agents 130A and 130B) 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 contact center may include multiple pairing modules (e.g., a BP module and a FIFO module) (not shown), and one or more pairing modules may be provided by one or more different vendors. In some embodiments, one or more pairing modules may be components of transition management module 140 or one or more switches such as central switch 110 or contact center switches 120A and 120B. In some embodiments, a transition management module 140 may determine which pairing module may handle pairing for a particular contact. For example, the transition management module 140 may alternate between enabling pairing via the BP module and enabling pairing with the FIFO module. In other embodiments, one pairing module (e.g., the BP module) may be configured to emulate other pairing strategies. For example, a transition management module 140, or a transition management component integrated with BP components in the BP module, may determine whether the BP module may use BP pairing or emulated FIFO pairing for a particular contact, hi this case, “BP on” may refer to times when the BP module is applying the BP pairing strategy, and “BP off’ may refer to other times when the BP module is applying a different pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO).
Embodiments of the present disclosure are not limited to benchmarking transition management of only two pairing strategies. Instead, benchmarking transition management may be performed for two or more pairing strategies (e.g,, benchmarking transition management of FIFO, PBR, and BP). FIG. 2 shows a schematic representation of an agent transition table 200 according to embodiments of the present disclosure. In the example of FIG. 2, four agents named “Alice”, “Bob”, “Charlie”, and “Donna” may be assigned to a particular queue for interacting with contacts. These agent names are for illustrative purposes only; in some embodiments, anonymized identification numbers or other identifiers may be used to represent agents in a contact center. Additionally, this highly simplified example only shows four agents. In some embodiments, hundreds of agents, thousands of agents, or more may be assigned to a queue and may be depicted in an agent transition table.
Agent transition table 200 shows five transitions labeled “201”, “202”, “203”, “204”, and “205”, In some embodiments, each transition may represent a point in time at which a contact center switches from one pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO) to another pairing strategy (e.g., BP). Transitions may occur multiple times per hour (e.g, every' 10 minutes, every 15 minutes, every 30 minutes) or more or less frequently throughout a day, week, month, year, etc. In some embodiments, transitions may be identified by the time of day at which the transition occurred. For example, transition 201 may have occurred at time 9:15 AM, transition 202 may have occurred at time 9:45 AM, etc.
At some transitions, even pairing strategies that target unbalanced agent utilization (e.g., PBR) may appear to have balanced utilization at transitions. For example, at transition 205, the average performance of the available agents (j.e., Alice and Donna) is 50.
Despite variance in average performance of available agents at any single transition, the average performance of available agents at multiple transitions over time (e.g., over the course of a day) may reflect the statistically expected utilization of a given pairing strategy. Agent transition table 200 shows five transitions 201-205, which, in some embodiments, may not be a stati stically significant number of transitions. Nevertheless, for illustrative purposes, the average available agent performance over the course of the five transitions 201-205 is (30+70+40+60+50)/5=50. In this example, the average available agent performance at the transitions over the course of five transitions 201-205 was balanced.
In some embodiments, in addition to or instead of determining the average performance of available agents over one or more transitions, the average availability of individual agents may also be determined and outputted. For example, in agent transition table 200, the average availability of each agent over each transition 201-205 is 60% for Alice (3 of 5 transitions), 40% for Bob (2 of 5 transitions), 40% for Charlie (2 of 5 transitions), and 60% for Donna (4 of 5 transitions). For pairing strategies that target balanced agent utilization (e.g., FIFO or BP), it may be statistically likely for each agent to be available approximately the same number of times or same proportion of transitions. In this simplified example, which depicts only five transitions 201-205, the average availability of each agent varies between 40% and 60%. However, over time, the average availability of each agent may be statistically likely to converge to the same percentage. For example, after 100 transitions, the average availability of every agent may approximately the same, e.g., 50%, 55%, 60%, etc. FIG. 3 shows a schematic representation of an agent Iran si ti on table 300 according to embodiments of the present disclosure. In contrast to the example of agent transition table 200 (FIG. 2), agent transition table 300 shows outcomes that would typically be expected in a contact center using an unbalanced pairing strategy such as PBR. In some embodiments of PBR, the highest-performing agent (i.e., Alice) may be preferably selected to interact with contacts. Consequently, Alice is never available at any of the transitions 301-305. Meanwhile, the lowest-performing agent (i.e., Donna) is always available at each of the transitions 301-305.
The average performance of available agents is 30 at transition 301, 40 at transition 302, 30 at transition 303, 20 at transition 304, and 40 at transition 305. The average performance of available agents over the course of five transitions 301-305 is unbalanced at (30+40+30+20+40)/5==32, The extent to which the average performance of available agents over time may show a statistically significant amount of skew in agent utilization that could “pollute”, bias, or otherwise influence the effectiveness of alternative pairing strategies following each transition, resulting in potentially unfair benchmarking measurements.
In some embodiments, in addition to or instead of determining the average performance of available agents over one or more transitions, the average availability of individual agents may also be determined and outputted. For example, in agent transition table 300, the average availability of each agent over each transition 301-305 is 0% for Alice (0 of 5 transitions), 40% for Bob (2 of 5 transitions), 60% for Charlie (3 of 5 transitions), and 100% for Donna (5 of 5 transitions). For pairing strategies that target unbalanced agent utilization (e.g., PBR), it may be statistically likely for some agents (e.g., lower-performing agents) to be available significantly more often than other agents (e.g., higher-performing agents). Even in this simplified example, which depicts only five transitions 501-505, the average availability of each agent varies significantly between 0% and 100%. Over time, the statistical significance of the varying average availability of each agent may be further confirmed. Here, an unbalanced pairing strategy such as PBR always or almost always hands off lower-performing agents to the next pairing strategy (e.g., BP or FIFO), while the higherperforming agents are never or almost never handed off. As explained above in reference to average agent quality at one or more transitions, the extent to which the average availability of agents over time may show a statistically significant amount of skew in agent utilization that could “pollute”, bias, or otherwise influence the effectiveness of alternative pairing strategies following each transition, resulting in potentially unfair benchmarking measurements. FIG. 4 depicts a schematic representation of an agent transition chart 400 according to embodiments of the present disclosure. In agent transition chart 400, the x-axis indicates a period of time. For example, x=0 may represent a first day, x:::l a second day, etc. over the course of a week. The y-axis indicates the average performance of available agents over all of the transitions from a first pairing strategy- to a second pairing strategy during a given time period. For example, at x=Q (e.g., Day 1), the average performance of available agents at transitions over the course of the day was 50. At x:::l (e.g., Day 2), the average performance was slightly above average, and at x=3 (e.g., Day 4), the average performance was slightly below average. Nevertheless, the agent transition chart 400 shows a relatively steady average performance over relatively longer time periods (e.g., a week). In some embodiments, the small amount of variability from day to day may be statistically insignificant, and the overall agent utilization for this first pairing strategy is balanced. FIG. 5 depicts a schematic representation of an agent transition chart 500 according to embodiments of the present disclosure. In agent transition chart 500, the overall agent utilization remains steady at about 25 from day to day, which is significantly below average. Thus, the overall agent utilization for this pairing strategy (e.g., PBR) is unbalanced.
When benchmarking among multiple pairing strategies, it is possible for a first pairing strategy (e.g., PBR) to “pollute” or otherwise bias the performance of a second pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO or BP). At each transition from PBR to BP, the average performance of available agents may be significantly below the overall average performance of all agents assigned to the queue (/. <2., imbalanced). This “suppressed” agent pool at the beginning of a BP or FIFO cycle may weaken the overall performance of BP or F IFO for that cycle.
Conversely, at each transition from BP or FIFO to PBR, the average performance of available agents may be similar or equal to the overall average performance of all agents assigned to the queue (/.<?., balanced). This balanced agent poo! at the beginning of each PBR cycle may enhance the overall performance of PBR for that cycle, because even a balanced agent pool may be better than the typical agent pool that PBR causes.
Because each PBR cycle may leave the agent pool more “polluted” (unbalanced) than when it received it, and each BP or FI FO cycle may leave the agent pool “cleaner” (balanced) than when it received it, some techniques for benchmarking PBR against BP or FIFO may give the appearance that BP or FIFO are performing worse than they otherwise would be if the PBR cycles were not polluting their available agent pools at the beginning of each cycle. Thus, it may be helpful to compare the average performance of available agents at the beginning (“front half’) of a cycle with the average performance of available agents at the end (“back half’) of the cycle. FIG. 6 shows a schematic representation of an agent transition chart 600 according to embodiments of the present disclosure. Agent transition chart 600 shows an example front-half/back-half comparison. At x=0 (e.g, Day 1), the difference between the average performance of available agents transitioning into a first pairing strategy and out of the first pairing strategy over the course of the day was 0. At x=l, the difference was slightly above 0, and at x=3 the difference was slightly below 0, but the overall differences over the course of a week stayed close to 0. Conceptually, the pairing strategies were leaving each other agent pools that were approximately the same average performance (e.g., quality).
An average difference of 0 does not necessarily imply that both pairing strategies are balanced (e.g., average performance of available agents of approximately 50). For example, if the first pairing strategy is PBR A with an average available agent performance of 25, and the second pairing strategy is PBRB with an average available agent performance of 25, die difference will still be 0. From a benchmarking perspective, it may acceptable for both pairing strategies to be unbalanced if the extent to which each is unbalanced is approximately the same. In this way, each pairing strategy' leaves an agent pool approximately as badly as it found it, and neither pairing strategy is polluting the other. FIG. 7 shows a schematic representation of an agent transition chart 700 according to embodiments of the present disclosure. Agent transition charge 700 shows another example of a tront-half/back-balf comparison. At x 0 (e.g., Day 1), the difference between the average performance of available agents transitioning into a first pairing strategy and out of the first pairing strategy over the course of the day was 25. At x=l, the difference was slightly above 25, and at x=3 the difference was slightly below 25, but the overall differences over the course of a week stayed close to 25. Conceptually, one of the pairing strategies is consistently and significantly polluting the agent pools of another pairing strategy during at transitions. For example, if the front-half of a PBR strategy is consistently receiving an agent pool with average performance of 50, and the back-half of the PBR strategy is consistently providing an agent pool with average performance of only 25, the difference is 25 on average.
An average difference significantly above 25 does not necessarily imply that either of the pairing strategies is balanced (e.g, average performance of available agents of approximately 50). For example, if the first pairing strategy is PBR A with an average available agent performance of 25, and the second pairing strategy is PBR B with an average available agent performance of 0, the difference will still be 25. The PBR B pairing strategy is still polluting the benchmark, causing PBR_A to perform worse than it would in the absence of cycling with PBRB, and causing PBRB to perform better than it would in the absence of cycling with PBR A. FIG. 8 shows a flow' diagram of a benchmarking transition management method 800 according to embodiments of the present disclosure. At block 810, benchmarking transition management method 800 may begin. A contact center system may be cycling among at least two pairing strategies. For example, the contact center system may be switching between BP and PBR pairing strategies. At each transition from BP to PBR. and vice versa, the agents available at each transition may be determined.
At block 810, a first average performance of available agents at transitions from the first pairing strategy (e.g,, BP) to the second pairing strategy (e.g., PBR) over time may be determined, based on determinations of available agents and their relative or otherwise normalized performance for each transition. The first average performance may also be considered the “front-half” measurement of the second pairing strategy' for the time period.
At block 840, in some embodiments, a transition management report may be generated. In some embodiments, the transition management report may include the first average performance difference determined at block 810, the second average performance difference determined at block 820, the average performance difference determined at block 840, or any combinati on thereof. The data may be presented in a variety of formats, including but not limited to agent transition tables (e.g., agent transition tables 200 and 300 (FIGS. 2 and 3)) or agent transition charts (e.g., agent transition charts 400, 500, 600, and 700 (FIGS, 4 -7)). The report may be dynamically generated and continuously or periodically updated. The report may include user interface elements for displaying, sorting, filtering, or otherwise selecting which data to display and how to display it. The report may be fully auditable, enabling viewers to inspect the source data for each element. For example, the report interface may include user interface elements that show a list of agent identifiers available at a given transition and their corresponding relative or normalized performance measures.
For example, in a contact center system cycling between PBR and BP, PBR is likely to suppress a configuration of BP that targets a uniform utilization of agents. A variety of techniques allow for BP to target a non-uniform utilization of agents. For example, adjusting a “Kappa” parameter may bias BP toward PBR with respect to agent utilization. Kappa is described in, e.g., U.S. Patent Application No. 14/956,086, which is incorporated by reference herein.
In contact center systems that cycle between FIFO and BP, the average performance difference may normally be zero, as both FIFO and BP target balanced agent utilization. However, in some environments, it may be desirable or optimal for BP to target an unbalanced agent utilization (e.g.. Kappa value greater than 1.0). If BP targets an unbalanced agent utilization, the average performance difference as compared to FIFO may be non-zero, indicating a suppressed or polluted benchmark. In these situations, it may be desirable to reduce or eliminate a Kappa adjustment (e.g,, Kappa decrease from 1.5 to 1.0) over the course of the last 3 minutes, 10 minutes, etc. The rate of such a “Kappa fade” may be adjusted to reduce the average performance difference between BP and FIFO back to zero while balancing the optimization of overall BP performance.
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 addi tion 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.
1. A method for benchmarking contact center system performance comprising: cycling, by at least one computer processor configured to perform contact center operations, between a first contact-agent pairing strategy and a second contact-agent pairing strategy for pairing contacts with agents in the contact center system; determining, by the at least one computer processor, an agent-utilization bias in the first contact-agent pairing strategy comprising a difference between a first agent utilization of the first contact-agent pairing strategy7 and a balanced agent utilization; and determining, by the at least one computer processor, a relative performance of the second contact-agent pairing strategy compared to the first contact-agent pairing strategy based on the agent-utilization bias in the first contact-agent pairing strategy.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: adjusting, by the at least one computer processor, a target agent utilization of the second contact-agent pairing strategy to reduce the agent-utilization bias in the first contact-agent pairing strategy.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the agent-utilization bias in the first contact-agent pairing strategy further comprises: determining, by the at least one computer processor, an average available-agent performance of a plurality of agents during at least one transition from the first contact-agent pairing strategy to the second contact-agent pairing strategy.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the agent-utilization bias in the first contact-agent pairing strategy further comprises: determining, by the at least one computer processor, an average availability of at least one of a plurality of agents during at least one transition from the first contact-agent pairing strategy to the second contact-agent pairing strategy.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: outputting, by the at least one computer processor, a transition management report comprising the agent-utilization bias of the first contact-agent pairing strategy.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the second contact -agent pairing strategy7 is a behavioral pairing strategy.
8. The method of claim 2, wherein the second contact-agent pairing strategy7 is a hybrid behavioral pairing strategy, and wherein the hybrid behavioral pairing strategy is biased toward a performance-based routing strategy.
9. The method of claim 2, wherein adjusting a target agent utilization of the second contact-agent pairing strategy further comprises: adjusting, by the at least one computer processor, at least one parameter of the second contact-agent pairing strategy.
13. A system for benchmarking performance in a contact center system comprising: at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: cycle between a first contact-agent pairing strategy and a second contact-agent pairing strategy for pairing contacts with agents in the contact center system; determine an agent-utilization bias in the first contact -agent pairing strategy comprising a difference between a first agent utilization of the first contact -agent pairing strategy and a balanced agent utilization; and determine a relative performance of the second contact-agent pairing strategy compared to the first contact-agent pairing strategy based on the agent-utilization bias in the first contact-agent pairing strategy.
14. The system of claim 13, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: adjust a target agent utilization of the second contact-agent pairing strategy to reduce the agent-utilization bias in the first contact-agent pairing strategy.
15. The system of claim 13, wherein the at least one processor, configured to determine the agent-utilization bias in the first contact-agent pairing strategy, is further configured to: determine an average available-agent performance of a plurality7 of agents during at least one transition from the first contact-agent pairing strategy to the second contact-agent pairing strategy.
16. The system of claim 13, wherein the at least one processor, configured to determine the agent-utilization bias in the first contact-agent pairing strategy, is further configured to: determine an average availability of at least one of a plurality of agents during at least one transition from the first contact-agent pairing strategy to the second contact-agent pairing strategy.
17. An article of manufacture for benchmarking performance in a contact center system comprising: a non-transitory processor readable medium; and instructions stored on the medium; wherein the instructions are configured to be readable from the medium by at least one processor configured to perform contact center operations and thereby cause the at least one processor to operate so as to: cycle between a first contact-agent pairing strategy and a second contact-agent pairing strategy for pairing contacts with agents in the contact center system; determine an agent-utilization bias in the first contact-agent pairing strategy comprising a difference between a first agent utilization of the first contact-agent pairing strategy and a balanced agent utilization; and determine a relative performance of the second contact-agent pairing strategy compared to the first contact-agent pairing strategy based on the agent-utilization bias in the first contact-agent pairing strategy.
18. The article of manufacture of claim 17, wherein the at least one processor is further caused to operate so as to: adjust a target agent utilization of the second contact-agent pairing strategy to reduce the agent-utilization bias in the first contact- agent pairing strategy.
19. The article of manufacture of claim 17, wherein the at least one processor, caused to operate so as to determine the agent-utilization bias in the first contact-agent pairing strategy, is further caused to operate so as to: determine an average available-agent performance of a plurality of agents during at least one transition from the first contact-agent pairing strategy to the second contact-agent pairing strategy.
20. The article of manufacture of claim 17, wherein the at least one processor, caused to operate so as to determine the agent-utilization bias in the first contact-agent pairing strategy, is further caused to operate so as to: determine an average availability of at least one of a plurality of agents during at least one transition from the first contact-agent pairing strategy to the second contact-agent pairing strategy.
AU2017278987A 2016-06-08 2017-05-23 Techniques for benchmarking performance in a contact center system Pending AU2017278987A1 (en)
US15/176,899 2016-06-08
AU2017278987A1 true AU2017278987A1 (en) 2018-08-02
AU2017278987A Pending AU2017278987A1 (en) 2016-06-08 2017-05-23 Techniques for benchmarking performance in a contact center system
JP (1) JP2019518356A (en)
2017-05-23 JP JP2018552214A patent/JP2019518356A/en active Pending
US10142473B1 (en) 2018-11-27
JP2019518356A (en) 2019-06-27