Happy new year Jay,
This topic is really interesting when considering worldwide or multi country deployment. I am currently working on a big prospect that has CCs in more than 10 countries and the scheduling feature is a must for them. but I don't see how to be accurate in their scenario.
Let me oversimplify the scenario. Let s consider 1 queue "main" and 2 countries (which we set as skills) "country1" and "country2" and those countries are also separated business units. But keep in mind that there is more countries. As of now this is how we configured the routing :
* all channels are placed on the "main" queue
* depending on the DID or destination@, we set the appropriate (country) skill
* each country provide 24h operations but with reduced agents at night
* Within this queue, we use the bullseye routing to first target the "local" agents, then after a certain amount of time, we remove the country skill.
The problem with the solution you gave is that splitting the resources to multiple queues and transfering the overflow to an "BU1OverflowToBU2" would prevent agents from BU1 to answer the interaction at that point. Also this can be apply if we have just 2 BUs, but in my customer case, there would be more than 10 that need to answer the same overflow.
Do you see any solution to this scenario?
Also how work the planning groups/Wieghted historical forecast with the bullseye routing? I assume that with the bullseye, there won't be any route that contains only the overflow (queue without the country skill) as bulsseye is just a routing method?
Thank a lot
------------------------------
Jacques Tiberghien
Paxyl Solutions
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 12-01-2020 11:34
From: Jay Langsford
Subject: WFM Forecasted Staffing and Planning Groups
Because staffing (scheduling, predicted requirement, predicted performance (service level, ASA, abandonment), etc.) will be completely blind to what is essentially a rogue set of resources handling interactions specifically forecast for the BU. E.g., we think you have 100 agents, but in actuality you have 150 or something
This will result in what will be perceived as:
- inflated staffing requirement predictions
- higher actual service level than predicted
- lower actual ASA than predicted
- lower actual abandonment than predicted
One of our fine folks on the consulting side can jump in (tagging @Chip Funk) with suggestions but I will note mine...
Customer may wish BU2 to handle some BU1 queues if BU1 resources are too busy. I would recommend against BU1 resources and BU2 resources having common queues to implement this behavior. Instead I would recommend the following:
- BU2 would have a BU1OverflowToBU2 queue
- BU1 would overflow/transfer interactions to the BU1OverflowToBU2 queue so that BU2 resources could handle
By implementing the overflow/transfer model each BU would have independent forecasts and staffing. E.g.,
- BU1 has the following queues: BU1Q1, BU1Q2, ...
- BU2 has the following queues: BU2Q1, BU2Q2, ..., BU1OverflowToBU2
------------------------------
Jay Langsford
Senior Director, Workforce Optimization Engineering
Original Message:
Sent: 12-01-2020 11:16
From: caroline mbanga
Subject: WFM Forecasted Staffing and Planning Groups
Hello Jay,
Please allow me to jump in this discussion.
You mention that shared resources/load that span business units should be avoided.
Also, in the Resource Center under Business unit key principles, it says Do not configure agents who handle the same queue into different business units.
Can you please elaborate more why? And what would happened if this recommendation is not followed?
I am currently preparing the WFM configuration for a client who currently has 3 business units but some resources have the skills to answer calls across the 3 business units.
The customer's desire is to keep these 3 units separate because their forecasts and schedules are generated by 3 different teams. What do you recommend In order to resolve the situation/remedy the customer's need?
Thank you.
------------------------------
caroline mbanga
i3Vision Technologies Inc.
Original Message:
Sent: 08-17-2020 08:01
From: Jay Langsford
Subject: WFM Forecasted Staffing and Planning Groups
Agents can belong to multiple planning groups. Shared resources/load is fine as long as it is within a business unit; shared resources/load that span business units should be avoided.
I would suggest reading the following recent post:
https://community.genesys.com/digestviewer29/viewthread?MessageKey=cff69e2e-63ac-4b93-b090-d9b4df543e05&CommunityKey=f6e20f73-2c94-4b44-be95-118216aafb4f&tab=digestviewer#bmcff69e2e-63ac-4b93-b090-d9b4df543e05
In regards to your two scenarios, of course creating a scenario with a more homogenous set of load and resources will produce a lower requirement than a more heterogenous mix. Multi- queue, media type, and/or skill capabilities and efficiencies are taken into account, but if you have isolated 'sets' of load and or resources, especially many/small ones, it will drive up staffing requirement.
------------------------------
Jay Langsford
Senior Director, Workforce Optimization Engineering
Original Message:
Sent: 08-16-2020 17:04
From: Will Bellerby
Subject: WFM Forecasted Staffing and Planning Groups
Hello,
I've found that the latest changes to Planning Groups have increased the stated forecast requirements significantly.
I believe this is because each group does not share resources with other planning groups which would occur in multi-queue or multi-skill configurations.
I ran two forecasts/schedules and compared the outputs using the Weighted Historical Import:
Scenario one: Two planning groups, both with identical forecasts
Scenario two: One planning group with double offered (i.e. the sum of Scenario One above) and the same AHT
Both scenarios use the same service goals.
The output was that Scenario one has a total required of between 11% - 36% higher than Scenario two.
It's as if there is no multi-skill efficiency for agents across multiple planning groups.
See the attached Excel sheet.
I can't see any documentation online saying something to the effect of "Planning Groups should not share resources, otherwise forecasted staffing will be overstated".
This is impossible to work in environments where agents are multi-skilled across queues.
We need to have individual Planning Groups as our forecasts need modifying by queue (e.g. multi-skilled agents with Sales and Service), yet we can't have multiple Planning Groups as our staffing forecasts are wrong.
Really keen for some feedback, I might be completely wrong
#QualityManagement
------------------------------
Will Bellerby
Pyrios NZ Ltd
------------------------------