Hi Filipe,
to piggy back on Jay's comments, the only other factor to consider is when the expansion takes place. Typically customers set them up in one of three ways:
1. expansion per service goal--This is the "try and save service goal" approach. in general this is least impactful on staffing predictions as the ASA may end up longer but the Service level is met (side note- occupancy may be skewed as well)
2. expansion shortly after service goal- This is the "just don't let it get real bad" approach and causes the most problems for planning. The WFM system thinks you can make it (or do much better than you do) because agents it thinks are available, actually are not.
3 expansion well after service goal- this is the "disaster recovery" approach as in expand if calls are going to wait 10 minute or more. This is typically designed to go to a whole other group of agents who are often in another business unit. in that case, the second tier SL predictions would be bad becasue they get flooded with this other volume, but the first group is pretty close, because in either case the prediction is probably pretty bad.
The second option is the most common and most difficult. What is your expansion timed at compared to your service goal?
------------------------------
Daniel Rickwalder
Genesys
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-14-2021 11:36
From: Jay Langsford
Subject: Would Bulls-eye routing method that doesn't remove skills work with WFM?
Ah, additional agents at subsequent rings... I got it now - shows how much I use BER ;)
The answer to your original question is that for that specific case it isn't as bad as the skill stripping case. But it still can lead to the forecast and the staff are from the WFM perspective where the need is and where the staff should be scheduled while the BER agent pool expansion (without skill stripping) artificially limits the pool in 'steps'. The disconnect would be WFM thinks all agents can handle offered interactions from the start, when in fact there is an artificial delay in when those agents might actually be able to be routed the interaction.
So, I would say the caveat about "Bullseye routing is not compatible with workforce management scheduling and forecasting" still stands even for the non-skill stripping case. There are means to accomplish pool expansion in other ways (e.g., overflow queues based on elapsed wait time) - our consultants can do a much better job at suggestions than I can on these types of topics.
There is an idea to support BER for WFM which to date has received zero votes: https://genesyscloud.ideas.aha.io/ideas/CLWFO-I-93
------------------------------
Jay Langsford
VP, R&D
Original Message:
Sent: 04-14-2021 10:51
From: Felipe Quintana
Subject: Would Bulls-eye routing method that doesn't remove skills work with WFM?
Hi @Jay Langsford Thank you for the reply. The expansion is from primary agents to agents staffing another queue serving as backup.
Original Message:
Sent: 04-14-2021 07:05
From: Jay Langsford
Subject: Would Bulls-eye routing method that doesn't remove skills work with WFM?
If you are not removing skills, then what affect does using BER with multiple rings provide? What expansion occurs?
------------------------------
Jay Langsford
Senior Director, Workforce Optimization Engineering
Original Message:
Sent: 04-13-2021 15:55
From: Felipe Quintana
Subject: Would Bulls-eye routing method that doesn't remove skills work with WFM?
Hi,
We have some queues that currently utilize bulls eye routing (BER) to expand agent search, but we are not removing skills as we expand the search.
would BER accurately allow WFM forecasts?
#WorkforceManagement