• Number of work plans
• Flexibility of shifts
• Number of shifts
• Number of agents
• Number of route groups (queue, interaction type, and skillset combinations in ACD data)
• Deferred work (i.e., service level objectives or average speed of answer goals greater than 15m)
• Number of other schedule generation requests ahead in queue
• Hardware processor
• Available memory
• Network speed

• Narrowing shift and activity start time windows and/or increasing start time increment
• Minimizing number of potential shifts per day
• Narrowing daily and weekly paid time range
• Minimize number of activities and avoid activity configurations with wide overlaps of start time windows
• Grouping as much as possible of agents in lower number work plans

The scheduling engine is attempting to accurately pick the agents needed to meet the forecast need while maintaining service performance goals. The benefit of increased FTE efficiency and higher and more stable service levels outweighs the increased schedule generation times.

What is the value gained in just one FTE reduction or a couple points of increased service level or a few second reduction in average speed of answer?

We could have a blazingly fast scheduling engine that is not very good or an amazingly good one that takes days or even weeks to run. We attempt to achieve a good balance between the two. Having said that we are finalizing a huge enhancement that will significantly lower schedule generation times and hope to release that later this quarter.

• Number of work plans
• Flexibility of shifts
• Number of shifts
• Number of agents
• Number of route groups (queue, interaction type, and skillset combinations in ACD data)
• Deferred work (i.e., service level objectives or average speed of answer goals greater than 15m)
• Number of other schedule generation requests ahead in queue
• Hardware processor
• Available memory
• Network speed

• Narrowing shift and activity start time windows and/or increasing start time increment
• Minimizing number of potential shifts per day
• Narrowing daily and weekly paid time range
• Minimize number of activities and avoid activity configurations with wide overlaps of start time windows
• Grouping as much as possible of agents in lower number work plans

The scheduling engine is attempting to accurately pick the agents needed to meet the forecast need while maintaining service performance goals. The benefit of increased FTE efficiency and higher and more stable service levels outweighs the increased schedule generation times.

What is the value gained in just one FTE reduction or a couple points of increased service level or a few second reduction in average speed of answer?

We could have a blazingly fast scheduling engine that is not very good or an amazingly good one that takes days or even weeks to run. We attempt to achieve a good balance between the two. Having said that we are finalizing a huge enhancement that will significantly lower schedule generation times and hope to release that later this quarter.

• Number of work plans
• Flexibility of shifts
• Number of shifts
• Number of agents
• Number of route groups (queue, interaction type, and skillset combinations in ACD data)
• Deferred work (i.e., service level objectives or average speed of answer goals greater than 15m)
• Number of other schedule generation requests ahead in queue
• Hardware processor
• Available memory
• Network speed

• Narrowing shift and activity start time windows and/or increasing start time increment
• Minimizing number of potential shifts per day
• Narrowing daily and weekly paid time range
• Minimize number of activities and avoid activity configurations with wide overlaps of start time windows
• Grouping as much as possible of agents in lower number work plans

The scheduling engine is attempting to accurately pick the agents needed to meet the forecast need while maintaining service performance goals. The benefit of increased FTE efficiency and higher and more stable service levels outweighs the increased schedule generation times.

What is the value gained in just one FTE reduction or a couple points of increased service level or a few second reduction in average speed of answer?

We could have a blazingly fast scheduling engine that is not very good or an amazingly good one that takes days or even weeks to run. We attempt to achieve a good balance between the two. Having said that we are finalizing a huge enhancement that will significantly lower schedule generation times and hope to release that later this quarter.

• Number of work plans
• Flexibility of shifts
• Number of shifts
• Number of agents
• Number of route groups (queue, interaction type, and skillset combinations in ACD data)
• Deferred work (i.e., service level objectives or average speed of answer goals greater than 15m)
• Number of other schedule generation requests ahead in queue
• Hardware processor
• Available memory
• Network speed

• Narrowing shift and activity start time windows and/or increasing start time increment
• Minimizing number of potential shifts per day
• Narrowing daily and weekly paid time range
• Minimize number of activities and avoid activity configurations with wide overlaps of start time windows
• Grouping as much as possible of agents in lower number work plans

The scheduling engine is attempting to accurately pick the agents needed to meet the forecast need while maintaining service performance goals. The benefit of increased FTE efficiency and higher and more stable service levels outweighs the increased schedule generation times.

What is the value gained in just one FTE reduction or a couple points of increased service level or a few second reduction in average speed of answer?

We could have a blazingly fast scheduling engine that is not very good or an amazingly good one that takes days or even weeks to run. We attempt to achieve a good balance between the two. Having said that we are finalizing a huge enhancement that will significantly lower schedule generation times and hope to release that later this quarter.

• Number of work plans
• Flexibility of shifts
• Number of shifts
• Number of agents
• Number of route groups (queue, interaction type, and skillset combinations in ACD data)
• Deferred work (i.e., service level objectives or average speed of answer goals greater than 15m)
• Number of other schedule generation requests ahead in queue
• Hardware processor
• Available memory
• Network speed

• Narrowing shift and activity start time windows and/or increasing start time increment
• Minimizing number of potential shifts per day
• Narrowing daily and weekly paid time range
• Minimize number of activities and avoid activity configurations with wide overlaps of start time windows
• Grouping as much as possible of agents in lower number work plans

The scheduling engine is attempting to accurately pick the agents needed to meet the forecast need while maintaining service performance goals. The benefit of increased FTE efficiency and higher and more stable service levels outweighs the increased schedule generation times.

What is the value gained in just one FTE reduction or a couple points of increased service level or a few second reduction in average speed of answer?

We could have a blazingly fast scheduling engine that is not very good or an amazingly good one that takes days or even weeks to run. We attempt to achieve a good balance between the two. Having said that we are finalizing a huge enhancement that will significantly lower schedule generation times and hope to release that later this quarter.