Workforce Engagement Management

I am not sure if you attended the latest roadmap from Genesys, but did anyone else hear the dreaded word "add-on" for the Capacity Planning side of WEM?  That hit me with dread of the days when you added RAM, $1500, Added Media Ports $2500, added Optimizer $480.  It just goes against all the messaging about GC3 as the "all-in-one" subscription.  I hope this is not the trends - Agent Assist Add-on, WEM Capacity Add-on, what-ever-else Add-on.   I understand that the development takes money and resources, but if we don't want to be like every other CCaaS vendor out there and start to nickel and dime customers with "add-ons', then I think Genesys cloud instead consider increasing the license costs and include the features. 

What do you all say?   

I heard "add-on" as well and wasn't too excited.  I also understand the development takes money, but what I don't understand is how this tool is just being developed now and how it won't be available until next year or later.  We have been waiting for this tool (and others) since we joined Genesys over 3 years ago.  

I am not sure if you attended the latest roadmap from Genesys, but did anyone else hear the dreaded word "add-on" for the Capacity Planning side of WEM?  That hit me with dread of the days when you added RAM, $1500, Added Media Ports $2500, added Optimizer $480.  It just goes against all the messaging about GC3 as the "all-in-one" subscription.  I hope this is not the trends - Agent Assist Add-on, WEM Capacity Add-on, what-ever-else Add-on.   I understand that the development takes money and resources, but if we don't want to be like every other CCaaS vendor out there and start to nickel and dime customers with "add-ons', then I think Genesys cloud instead consider increasing the license costs and include the features. 

What do you all say?   

I am not sure if you attended the latest roadmap from Genesys, but did anyone else hear the dreaded word "add-on" for the Capacity Planning side of WEM?  That hit me with dread of the days when you added RAM, $1500, Added Media Ports $2500, added Optimizer $480.  It just goes against all the messaging about GC3 as the "all-in-one" subscription.  I hope this is not the trends - Agent Assist Add-on, WEM Capacity Add-on, what-ever-else Add-on.   I understand that the development takes money and resources, but if we don't want to be like every other CCaaS vendor out there and start to nickel and dime customers with "add-ons', then I think Genesys cloud instead consider increasing the license costs and include the features. 

What do you all say?   

Good point, the add-on makes sense for some features but not for basic features that are part of WFM. Several customers were missing cpacity planning from day one and not sure about Genesys commercial strategy here but it is a key core feature and shouldn't be an add on. I understand that heavyly or frequently used features that use generative AI for example may incurr higher cost and qualify as add-ons but not features that are tyically for an admin or planner who was told he's got WFM included. On the other side I don't see the point in including features just to tick boxes in the RFPs because developement is expensive and can only include minimum features if bundeled in the GC3 license cost. Not sure customers have any say in Genesys pricing strategy though. The bottom line is that such add-ons makes it a lot harder to compare solutions.

I am not sure if you attended the latest roadmap from Genesys, but did anyone else hear the dreaded word "add-on" for the Capacity Planning side of WEM?  That hit me with dread of the days when you added RAM, $1500, Added Media Ports $2500, added Optimizer $480.  It just goes against all the messaging about GC3 as the "all-in-one" subscription.  I hope this is not the trends - Agent Assist Add-on, WEM Capacity Add-on, what-ever-else Add-on.   I understand that the development takes money and resources, but if we don't want to be like every other CCaaS vendor out there and start to nickel and dime customers with "add-ons', then I think Genesys cloud instead consider increasing the license costs and include the features. 

What do you all say?   

There are seemingly many features that Cloud should have but simply doesn't. I started a thread about this around last summer looking to do a couple things:

1. Come up with a list of those features that we widely see as a community are missing so that Genesys can also be made aware of our collective struggles;
2. Discuss and share any work-arounds that we have made so others can benefit from them if possible;
3. Highlight any Idea Portal entries that exist so we can vote on them and again voice to Genesys which features we need.

I have thought about doing another post of that nature recently, so if you and the wider community are onboard, I can do just that in the morning.

Good point, the add-on makes sense for some features but not for basic features that are part of WFM. Several customers were missing cpacity planning from day one and not sure about Genesys commercial strategy here but it is a key core feature and shouldn't be an add on. I understand that heavyly or frequently used features that use generative AI for example may incurr higher cost and qualify as add-ons but not features that are tyically for an admin or planner who was told he's got WFM included. On the other side I don't see the point in including features just to tick boxes in the RFPs because developement is expensive and can only include minimum features if bundeled in the GC3 license cost. Not sure customers have any say in Genesys pricing strategy though. The bottom line is that such add-ons makes it a lot harder to compare solutions.

I am not sure if you attended the latest roadmap from Genesys, but did anyone else hear the dreaded word "add-on" for the Capacity Planning side of WEM?  That hit me with dread of the days when you added RAM, $1500, Added Media Ports $2500, added Optimizer $480.  It just goes against all the messaging about GC3 as the "all-in-one" subscription.  I hope this is not the trends - Agent Assist Add-on, WEM Capacity Add-on, what-ever-else Add-on.   I understand that the development takes money and resources, but if we don't want to be like every other CCaaS vendor out there and start to nickel and dime customers with "add-ons', then I think Genesys cloud instead consider increasing the license costs and include the features. 

What do you all say?   

I am not sure if you attended the latest roadmap from Genesys, but did anyone else hear the dreaded word "add-on" for the Capacity Planning side of WEM?  That hit me with dread of the days when you added RAM, $1500, Added Media Ports $2500, added Optimizer $480.  It just goes against all the messaging about GC3 as the "all-in-one" subscription.  I hope this is not the trends - Agent Assist Add-on, WEM Capacity Add-on, what-ever-else Add-on.   I understand that the development takes money and resources, but if we don't want to be like every other CCaaS vendor out there and start to nickel and dime customers with "add-ons', then I think Genesys cloud instead consider increasing the license costs and include the features. 

What do you all say?   

I am not sure if you attended the latest roadmap from Genesys, but did anyone else hear the dreaded word "add-on" for the Capacity Planning side of WEM?  That hit me with dread of the days when you added RAM, $1500, Added Media Ports $2500, added Optimizer $480.  It just goes against all the messaging about GC3 as the "all-in-one" subscription.  I hope this is not the trends - Agent Assist Add-on, WEM Capacity Add-on, what-ever-else Add-on.   I understand that the development takes money and resources, but if we don't want to be like every other CCaaS vendor out there and start to nickel and dime customers with "add-ons', then I think Genesys cloud instead consider increasing the license costs and include the features. 

What do you all say?   

I am not sure if you attended the latest roadmap from Genesys, but did anyone else hear the dreaded word "add-on" for the Capacity Planning side of WEM?  That hit me with dread of the days when you added RAM, $1500, Added Media Ports $2500, added Optimizer $480.  It just goes against all the messaging about GC3 as the "all-in-one" subscription.  I hope this is not the trends - Agent Assist Add-on, WEM Capacity Add-on, what-ever-else Add-on.   I understand that the development takes money and resources, but if we don't want to be like every other CCaaS vendor out there and start to nickel and dime customers with "add-ons', then I think Genesys cloud instead consider increasing the license costs and include the features. 

What do you all say?   

Our plan around Capacity Planning is to build a very feature rich set capabilities, similar to what was possible with the Decisions product.  This includes:

• Capacity Planning Scenarios
• New Hire Classes
• New Hire Training Lengths and Productivity Factors
• Shrinkage Factors
• Attrition Allocation
• Variable FTE
• Also, eventually:
  • Transfers
  • In / Out Loans
  • Shrinkage Forecasting

Many organizations don't need this level of complexity, so this will be an optional Add On for those that require it.

For those that just need basic information on Staffing Requirements, that will be possible to get from the Schedule View and eventually will be available as an Export as part of the Continuous Forecasting capability coming out later this year.  There we will provide Staffing Requirements out to 58 weeks.

I hope that better explains why this is an add on and not just a feature improvement on top of WFM in GC3/WEM Add On.

I am not sure if you attended the latest roadmap from Genesys, but did anyone else hear the dreaded word "add-on" for the Capacity Planning side of WEM?  That hit me with dread of the days when you added RAM, $1500, Added Media Ports $2500, added Optimizer $480.  It just goes against all the messaging about GC3 as the "all-in-one" subscription.  I hope this is not the trends - Agent Assist Add-on, WEM Capacity Add-on, what-ever-else Add-on.   I understand that the development takes money and resources, but if we don't want to be like every other CCaaS vendor out there and start to nickel and dime customers with "add-ons', then I think Genesys cloud instead consider increasing the license costs and include the features. 

What do you all say?   

I think there needs to be some negotiation here.  We are sorely missing long-term forecasting and headcount (a subset of capacity planning).  Most users just want to forecast 2-3 years out and have an estimate of headcount requirements.  I agree that that full suite of capacity planning is rich and probably worth the "add-on" price, but we need to give +WEM and GC3 users something that is useful.  If we could just add a headcount estimate, we could make customers see value in adding on the rest of capacity planning.  

Our plan around Capacity Planning is to build a very feature rich set capabilities, similar to what was possible with the Decisions product.  This includes:

• Capacity Planning Scenarios
• New Hire Classes
• New Hire Training Lengths and Productivity Factors
• Shrinkage Factors
• Attrition Allocation
• Variable FTE
• Also, eventually:
  • Transfers
  • In / Out Loans
  • Shrinkage Forecasting

Many organizations don't need this level of complexity, so this will be an optional Add On for those that require it.

For those that just need basic information on Staffing Requirements, that will be possible to get from the Schedule View and eventually will be available as an Export as part of the Continuous Forecasting capability coming out later this year.  There we will provide Staffing Requirements out to 58 weeks.

I hope that better explains why this is an add on and not just a feature improvement on top of WFM in GC3/WEM Add On.

I am not sure if you attended the latest roadmap from Genesys, but did anyone else hear the dreaded word "add-on" for the Capacity Planning side of WEM?  That hit me with dread of the days when you added RAM, $1500, Added Media Ports $2500, added Optimizer $480.  It just goes against all the messaging about GC3 as the "all-in-one" subscription.  I hope this is not the trends - Agent Assist Add-on, WEM Capacity Add-on, what-ever-else Add-on.   I understand that the development takes money and resources, but if we don't want to be like every other CCaaS vendor out there and start to nickel and dime customers with "add-ons', then I think Genesys cloud instead consider increasing the license costs and include the features. 

What do you all say?   

Long Term forecasting will still be part of GC3 as part of the Continuous Forecasting feature which is planned for later this year.  With Continuous Forecasting, users will be able to get a forecast out to 2 years or more.  Currently we are looking at the forecasting including 15 minute granularity data for the first 58 weeks, then daily granularity out to 104 weeks and then weekly granularity beyond that.

As part of a that forecast export, users will also be able to get the estimated headcount out to 58 weeks at that 15 minute granularity to help with planning.

It would be great to get your feedback on what is proposed above.  Does that granularity and timeframe serve most use cases?

Thanks,

I think there needs to be some negotiation here.  We are sorely missing long-term forecasting and headcount (a subset of capacity planning).  Most users just want to forecast 2-3 years out and have an estimate of headcount requirements.  I agree that that full suite of capacity planning is rich and probably worth the "add-on" price, but we need to give +WEM and GC3 users something that is useful.  If we could just add a headcount estimate, we could make customers see value in adding on the rest of capacity planning.  

Our plan around Capacity Planning is to build a very feature rich set capabilities, similar to what was possible with the Decisions product.  This includes:

• Capacity Planning Scenarios
• New Hire Classes
• New Hire Training Lengths and Productivity Factors
• Shrinkage Factors
• Attrition Allocation
• Variable FTE
• Also, eventually:
  • Transfers
  • In / Out Loans
  • Shrinkage Forecasting

Many organizations don't need this level of complexity, so this will be an optional Add On for those that require it.

For those that just need basic information on Staffing Requirements, that will be possible to get from the Schedule View and eventually will be available as an Export as part of the Continuous Forecasting capability coming out later this year.  There we will provide Staffing Requirements out to 58 weeks.

I hope that better explains why this is an add on and not just a feature improvement on top of WFM in GC3/WEM Add On.

I am not sure if you attended the latest roadmap from Genesys, but did anyone else hear the dreaded word "add-on" for the Capacity Planning side of WEM?  That hit me with dread of the days when you added RAM, $1500, Added Media Ports $2500, added Optimizer $480.  It just goes against all the messaging about GC3 as the "all-in-one" subscription.  I hope this is not the trends - Agent Assist Add-on, WEM Capacity Add-on, what-ever-else Add-on.   I understand that the development takes money and resources, but if we don't want to be like every other CCaaS vendor out there and start to nickel and dime customers with "add-ons', then I think Genesys cloud instead consider increasing the license costs and include the features. 

What do you all say?   

I don't think the 15-minute granularity is an issue, but they have asked for more macro reporting.  I would say we really need Hourly, Daily, Monthly, Quarterly in addition to the micro.  

I don't really like having headcount only in the export - most people find the CSV export pretty ugly and hard to manage.  They would prefer something in the UI.  

Long Term forecasting will still be part of GC3 as part of the Continuous Forecasting feature which is planned for later this year.  With Continuous Forecasting, users will be able to get a forecast out to 2 years or more.  Currently we are looking at the forecasting including 15 minute granularity data for the first 58 weeks, then daily granularity out to 104 weeks and then weekly granularity beyond that.

As part of a that forecast export, users will also be able to get the estimated headcount out to 58 weeks at that 15 minute granularity to help with planning.

It would be great to get your feedback on what is proposed above.  Does that granularity and timeframe serve most use cases?

Thanks,

I think there needs to be some negotiation here.  We are sorely missing long-term forecasting and headcount (a subset of capacity planning).  Most users just want to forecast 2-3 years out and have an estimate of headcount requirements.  I agree that that full suite of capacity planning is rich and probably worth the "add-on" price, but we need to give +WEM and GC3 users something that is useful.  If we could just add a headcount estimate, we could make customers see value in adding on the rest of capacity planning.  

Our plan around Capacity Planning is to build a very feature rich set capabilities, similar to what was possible with the Decisions product.  This includes:

• Capacity Planning Scenarios
• New Hire Classes
• New Hire Training Lengths and Productivity Factors
• Shrinkage Factors
• Attrition Allocation
• Variable FTE
• Also, eventually:
  • Transfers
  • In / Out Loans
  • Shrinkage Forecasting

Many organizations don't need this level of complexity, so this will be an optional Add On for those that require it.

For those that just need basic information on Staffing Requirements, that will be possible to get from the Schedule View and eventually will be available as an Export as part of the Continuous Forecasting capability coming out later this year.  There we will provide Staffing Requirements out to 58 weeks.

I hope that better explains why this is an add on and not just a feature improvement on top of WFM in GC3/WEM Add On.

I am not sure if you attended the latest roadmap from Genesys, but did anyone else hear the dreaded word "add-on" for the Capacity Planning side of WEM?  That hit me with dread of the days when you added RAM, $1500, Added Media Ports $2500, added Optimizer $480.  It just goes against all the messaging about GC3 as the "all-in-one" subscription.  I hope this is not the trends - Agent Assist Add-on, WEM Capacity Add-on, what-ever-else Add-on.   I understand that the development takes money and resources, but if we don't want to be like every other CCaaS vendor out there and start to nickel and dime customers with "add-ons', then I think Genesys cloud instead consider increasing the license costs and include the features. 

What do you all say?   

Robert, if the forecasting feature in CX3 (not the add on for cap planning) included weekly staffing requirements in the UI, along with the ability to enter a "available" FTE # so you could do an over under comparison weekly, and also a shrinkage input to gross up for shrinkage, would that meet your expectations for a WFM offer in CX3 below full blown cap planning?  And cap planning would go farther with specific hiring classes, budgeting, more advanced shrinkage etc... what are your thoughts?

I don't think the 15-minute granularity is an issue, but they have asked for more macro reporting.  I would say we really need Hourly, Daily, Monthly, Quarterly in addition to the micro.  

I don't really like having headcount only in the export - most people find the CSV export pretty ugly and hard to manage.  They would prefer something in the UI.  

Long Term forecasting will still be part of GC3 as part of the Continuous Forecasting feature which is planned for later this year.  With Continuous Forecasting, users will be able to get a forecast out to 2 years or more.  Currently we are looking at the forecasting including 15 minute granularity data for the first 58 weeks, then daily granularity out to 104 weeks and then weekly granularity beyond that.

As part of a that forecast export, users will also be able to get the estimated headcount out to 58 weeks at that 15 minute granularity to help with planning.

It would be great to get your feedback on what is proposed above.  Does that granularity and timeframe serve most use cases?

Thanks,

I think there needs to be some negotiation here.  We are sorely missing long-term forecasting and headcount (a subset of capacity planning).  Most users just want to forecast 2-3 years out and have an estimate of headcount requirements.  I agree that that full suite of capacity planning is rich and probably worth the "add-on" price, but we need to give +WEM and GC3 users something that is useful.  If we could just add a headcount estimate, we could make customers see value in adding on the rest of capacity planning.  

Our plan around Capacity Planning is to build a very feature rich set capabilities, similar to what was possible with the Decisions product.  This includes:

• Capacity Planning Scenarios
• New Hire Classes
• New Hire Training Lengths and Productivity Factors
• Shrinkage Factors
• Attrition Allocation
• Variable FTE
• Also, eventually:
  • Transfers
  • In / Out Loans
  • Shrinkage Forecasting

Many organizations don't need this level of complexity, so this will be an optional Add On for those that require it.

For those that just need basic information on Staffing Requirements, that will be possible to get from the Schedule View and eventually will be available as an Export as part of the Continuous Forecasting capability coming out later this year.  There we will provide Staffing Requirements out to 58 weeks.

I hope that better explains why this is an add on and not just a feature improvement on top of WFM in GC3/WEM Add On.

I am not sure if you attended the latest roadmap from Genesys, but did anyone else hear the dreaded word "add-on" for the Capacity Planning side of WEM?  That hit me with dread of the days when you added RAM, $1500, Added Media Ports $2500, added Optimizer $480.  It just goes against all the messaging about GC3 as the "all-in-one" subscription.  I hope this is not the trends - Agent Assist Add-on, WEM Capacity Add-on, what-ever-else Add-on.   I understand that the development takes money and resources, but if we don't want to be like every other CCaaS vendor out there and start to nickel and dime customers with "add-ons', then I think Genesys cloud instead consider increasing the license costs and include the features. 

What do you all say?   

Yes, just the headcount/staffing required at a macro level (daily/weekly) should be sufficient in the UI.  For micro scheduling, that is something for scheduling or capacity planning.  This combined with the 'cone of confidence" would at least give them an idea that they need x or xx agents in a year's time.  

Robert, if the forecasting feature in CX3 (not the add on for cap planning) included weekly staffing requirements in the UI, along with the ability to enter a "available" FTE # so you could do an over under comparison weekly, and also a shrinkage input to gross up for shrinkage, would that meet your expectations for a WFM offer in CX3 below full blown cap planning?  And cap planning would go farther with specific hiring classes, budgeting, more advanced shrinkage etc... what are your thoughts?

I don't think the 15-minute granularity is an issue, but they have asked for more macro reporting.  I would say we really need Hourly, Daily, Monthly, Quarterly in addition to the micro.  

I don't really like having headcount only in the export - most people find the CSV export pretty ugly and hard to manage.  They would prefer something in the UI.  

Long Term forecasting will still be part of GC3 as part of the Continuous Forecasting feature which is planned for later this year.  With Continuous Forecasting, users will be able to get a forecast out to 2 years or more.  Currently we are looking at the forecasting including 15 minute granularity data for the first 58 weeks, then daily granularity out to 104 weeks and then weekly granularity beyond that.

As part of a that forecast export, users will also be able to get the estimated headcount out to 58 weeks at that 15 minute granularity to help with planning.

It would be great to get your feedback on what is proposed above.  Does that granularity and timeframe serve most use cases?

Thanks,

I think there needs to be some negotiation here.  We are sorely missing long-term forecasting and headcount (a subset of capacity planning).  Most users just want to forecast 2-3 years out and have an estimate of headcount requirements.  I agree that that full suite of capacity planning is rich and probably worth the "add-on" price, but we need to give +WEM and GC3 users something that is useful.  If we could just add a headcount estimate, we could make customers see value in adding on the rest of capacity planning.  

Our plan around Capacity Planning is to build a very feature rich set capabilities, similar to what was possible with the Decisions product.  This includes:

• Capacity Planning Scenarios
• New Hire Classes
• New Hire Training Lengths and Productivity Factors
• Shrinkage Factors
• Attrition Allocation
• Variable FTE
• Also, eventually:
  • Transfers
  • In / Out Loans
  • Shrinkage Forecasting

Many organizations don't need this level of complexity, so this will be an optional Add On for those that require it.

For those that just need basic information on Staffing Requirements, that will be possible to get from the Schedule View and eventually will be available as an Export as part of the Continuous Forecasting capability coming out later this year.  There we will provide Staffing Requirements out to 58 weeks.

I hope that better explains why this is an add on and not just a feature improvement on top of WFM in GC3/WEM Add On.

I am not sure if you attended the latest roadmap from Genesys, but did anyone else hear the dreaded word "add-on" for the Capacity Planning side of WEM?  That hit me with dread of the days when you added RAM, $1500, Added Media Ports $2500, added Optimizer $480.  It just goes against all the messaging about GC3 as the "all-in-one" subscription.  I hope this is not the trends - Agent Assist Add-on, WEM Capacity Add-on, what-ever-else Add-on.   I understand that the development takes money and resources, but if we don't want to be like every other CCaaS vendor out there and start to nickel and dime customers with "add-ons', then I think Genesys cloud instead consider increasing the license costs and include the features. 

What do you all say?   

Yes, just the headcount/staffing required at a macro level (daily/weekly) should be sufficient in the UI.  For micro scheduling, that is something for scheduling or capacity planning.  This combined with the 'cone of confidence" would at least give them an idea that they need x or xx agents in a year's time.  

------------------------------
Robert Wakefield-Carl
ttec Digital
Sr. Director - Innovation Architects
Robert.WC@ttecdigital.com
https://www.ttecDigital.com
https://RobertWC.Blogspot.com

Original Message:
Sent: 02-06-2024 10:06
From: Christopher Johnson
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

Robert, if the forecasting feature in CX3 (not the add on for cap planning) included weekly staffing requirements in the UI, along with the ability to enter a "available" FTE # so you could do an over under comparison weekly, and also a shrinkage input to gross up for shrinkage, would that meet your expectations for a WFM offer in CX3 below full blown cap planning?  And cap planning would go farther with specific hiring classes, budgeting, more advanced shrinkage etc... what are your thoughts?

------------------------------
Christopher Johnson
Genesys - Employees

Original Message:
Sent: 02-06-2024 09:51
From: Robert Wakefield-Carl
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

I don't think the 15-minute granularity is an issue, but they have asked for more macro reporting.  I would say we really need Hourly, Daily, Monthly, Quarterly in addition to the micro.  

I don't really like having headcount only in the export - most people find the CSV export pretty ugly and hard to manage.  They would prefer something in the UI.  

------------------------------
Robert Wakefield-Carl
ttec Digital
Sr. Director - Innovation Architects
Robert.WC@ttecdigital.com
https://www.ttecDigital.com
https://RobertWC.Blogspot.com

Original Message:
Sent: 02-06-2024 06:01
From: Rakesh Tailor
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

Long Term forecasting will still be part of GC3 as part of the Continuous Forecasting feature which is planned for later this year.  With Continuous Forecasting, users will be able to get a forecast out to 2 years or more.  Currently we are looking at the forecasting including 15 minute granularity data for the first 58 weeks, then daily granularity out to 104 weeks and then weekly granularity beyond that.

As part of a that forecast export, users will also be able to get the estimated headcount out to 58 weeks at that 15 minute granularity to help with planning.

It would be great to get your feedback on what is proposed above.  Does that granularity and timeframe serve most use cases?

Thanks,

------------------------------
Rakesh Tailor
Vice President, Product Management
Workforce Engagement Management (WEM)

Original Message:
Sent: 02-06-2024 01:02
From: Robert Wakefield-Carl
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

I think there needs to be some negotiation here.  We are sorely missing long-term forecasting and headcount (a subset of capacity planning).  Most users just want to forecast 2-3 years out and have an estimate of headcount requirements.  I agree that that full suite of capacity planning is rich and probably worth the "add-on" price, but we need to give +WEM and GC3 users something that is useful.  If we could just add a headcount estimate, we could make customers see value in adding on the rest of capacity planning.  

------------------------------
Robert Wakefield-Carl
ttec Digital
Sr. Director - Innovation Architects
Robert.WC@ttecdigital.com
https://www.ttecDigital.com
https://RobertWC.Blogspot.com

Original Message:
Sent: 02-01-2024 06:40
From: Rakesh Tailor
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

Our plan around Capacity Planning is to build a very feature rich set capabilities, similar to what was possible with the Decisions product.  This includes:

• Capacity Planning Scenarios
• New Hire Classes
• New Hire Training Lengths and Productivity Factors
• Shrinkage Factors
• Attrition Allocation
• Variable FTE
• Also, eventually:
  • Transfers
  • In / Out Loans
  • Shrinkage Forecasting

Many organizations don't need this level of complexity, so this will be an optional Add On for those that require it.

For those that just need basic information on Staffing Requirements, that will be possible to get from the Schedule View and eventually will be available as an Export as part of the Continuous Forecasting capability coming out later this year.  There we will provide Staffing Requirements out to 58 weeks.

I hope that better explains why this is an add on and not just a feature improvement on top of WFM in GC3/WEM Add On.

------------------------------
Rakesh Tailor
Vice President, Product Management
Recording, Quality, Survey, Speech and Text Analytics
Genesys Cloud

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 01:00
From: Robert Wakefield-Carl
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

I am not sure if you attended the latest roadmap from Genesys, but did anyone else hear the dreaded word "add-on" for the Capacity Planning side of WEM?  That hit me with dread of the days when you added RAM, $1500, Added Media Ports $2500, added Optimizer $480.  It just goes against all the messaging about GC3 as the "all-in-one" subscription.  I hope this is not the trends - Agent Assist Add-on, WEM Capacity Add-on, what-ever-else Add-on.   I understand that the development takes money and resources, but if we don't want to be like every other CCaaS vendor out there and start to nickel and dime customers with "add-ons', then I think Genesys cloud instead consider increasing the license costs and include the features. 

What do you all say?   

#Forecasting
#Scheduling

------------------------------
Robert Wakefield-Carl
ttec Digital
Sr. Director - Innovation Architects
Robert.WC@ttecdigital.com
https://www.ttecDigital.com
https://RobertWC.Blogspot.com
------------------------------

Thank you for your input, Robert, I have a question regarding the expectation on what you would see as daily or weekly requirements -- is it:

1. Aggregate (sum/average etc.) of raw requirements at the 15-minute interval to the daily and weekly level? or
2. A weekly (or daily) requirement number that hits the performance goal, e.g., 80% service level, to the week (or day)?

The side effect of the first option would be a day/weekly requirement that hits 80% SL at every 15-minute interval (assuming 80% is the goal). When aggregated to the day/week from this raw number, we assume that there is no scheduling or other staffing inefficiencies, so it may produce a higher (or lower) requirements than operationally possible/feasible.

The side effect of the second option would be that the goal is hit at the day/week level, but not every interval would hit the goal, i.e., some would be higher than 80%, some would be lower. However, at the day/week level, it would aggregated to 80%. This requirement number would incorporate steady-state staffing/scheduling inefficiency derived from historical data, so it would more reflect what is operationally possible/feasible. 

Curious to know your thoughts, cheers!

------------------------------
Bayu Wicaksono
Senior Director, Operations Research & Development
Genesys - Employees

Original Message:
Sent: 02-06-2024 14:30
From: Robert Wakefield-Carl
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

Yes, just the headcount/staffing required at a macro level (daily/weekly) should be sufficient in the UI.  For micro scheduling, that is something for scheduling or capacity planning.  This combined with the 'cone of confidence" would at least give them an idea that they need x or xx agents in a year's time.  

------------------------------
Robert Wakefield-Carl
ttec Digital
Sr. Director - Innovation Architects
Robert.WC@ttecdigital.com
https://www.ttecDigital.com
https://RobertWC.Blogspot.com

Original Message:
Sent: 02-06-2024 10:06
From: Christopher Johnson
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

Robert, if the forecasting feature in CX3 (not the add on for cap planning) included weekly staffing requirements in the UI, along with the ability to enter a "available" FTE # so you could do an over under comparison weekly, and also a shrinkage input to gross up for shrinkage, would that meet your expectations for a WFM offer in CX3 below full blown cap planning?  And cap planning would go farther with specific hiring classes, budgeting, more advanced shrinkage etc... what are your thoughts?

------------------------------
Christopher Johnson
Genesys - Employees

Original Message:
Sent: 02-06-2024 09:51
From: Robert Wakefield-Carl
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

I don't think the 15-minute granularity is an issue, but they have asked for more macro reporting.  I would say we really need Hourly, Daily, Monthly, Quarterly in addition to the micro.  

I don't really like having headcount only in the export - most people find the CSV export pretty ugly and hard to manage.  They would prefer something in the UI.  

------------------------------
Robert Wakefield-Carl
ttec Digital
Sr. Director - Innovation Architects
Robert.WC@ttecdigital.com
https://www.ttecDigital.com
https://RobertWC.Blogspot.com

Original Message:
Sent: 02-06-2024 06:01
From: Rakesh Tailor
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

Long Term forecasting will still be part of GC3 as part of the Continuous Forecasting feature which is planned for later this year.  With Continuous Forecasting, users will be able to get a forecast out to 2 years or more.  Currently we are looking at the forecasting including 15 minute granularity data for the first 58 weeks, then daily granularity out to 104 weeks and then weekly granularity beyond that.

As part of a that forecast export, users will also be able to get the estimated headcount out to 58 weeks at that 15 minute granularity to help with planning.

It would be great to get your feedback on what is proposed above.  Does that granularity and timeframe serve most use cases?

Thanks,

------------------------------
Rakesh Tailor
Vice President, Product Management
Workforce Engagement Management (WEM)

Original Message:
Sent: 02-06-2024 01:02
From: Robert Wakefield-Carl
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

I think there needs to be some negotiation here.  We are sorely missing long-term forecasting and headcount (a subset of capacity planning).  Most users just want to forecast 2-3 years out and have an estimate of headcount requirements.  I agree that that full suite of capacity planning is rich and probably worth the "add-on" price, but we need to give +WEM and GC3 users something that is useful.  If we could just add a headcount estimate, we could make customers see value in adding on the rest of capacity planning.  

------------------------------
Robert Wakefield-Carl
ttec Digital
Sr. Director - Innovation Architects
Robert.WC@ttecdigital.com
https://www.ttecDigital.com
https://RobertWC.Blogspot.com

Original Message:
Sent: 02-01-2024 06:40
From: Rakesh Tailor
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

Our plan around Capacity Planning is to build a very feature rich set capabilities, similar to what was possible with the Decisions product.  This includes:

• Capacity Planning Scenarios
• New Hire Classes
• New Hire Training Lengths and Productivity Factors
• Shrinkage Factors
• Attrition Allocation
• Variable FTE
• Also, eventually:
  • Transfers
  • In / Out Loans
  • Shrinkage Forecasting

Many organizations don't need this level of complexity, so this will be an optional Add On for those that require it.

For those that just need basic information on Staffing Requirements, that will be possible to get from the Schedule View and eventually will be available as an Export as part of the Continuous Forecasting capability coming out later this year.  There we will provide Staffing Requirements out to 58 weeks.

I hope that better explains why this is an add on and not just a feature improvement on top of WFM in GC3/WEM Add On.

------------------------------
Rakesh Tailor
Vice President, Product Management
Recording, Quality, Survey, Speech and Text Analytics
Genesys Cloud

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 01:00
From: Robert Wakefield-Carl
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

I am not sure if you attended the latest roadmap from Genesys, but did anyone else hear the dreaded word "add-on" for the Capacity Planning side of WEM?  That hit me with dread of the days when you added RAM, $1500, Added Media Ports $2500, added Optimizer $480.  It just goes against all the messaging about GC3 as the "all-in-one" subscription.  I hope this is not the trends - Agent Assist Add-on, WEM Capacity Add-on, what-ever-else Add-on.   I understand that the development takes money and resources, but if we don't want to be like every other CCaaS vendor out there and start to nickel and dime customers with "add-ons', then I think Genesys cloud instead consider increasing the license costs and include the features. 

What do you all say?   

#Forecasting
#Scheduling

------------------------------
Robert Wakefield-Carl
ttec Digital
Sr. Director - Innovation Architects
Robert.WC@ttecdigital.com
https://www.ttecDigital.com
https://RobertWC.Blogspot.com
------------------------------

Thank you for your input, Robert, I have a question regarding the expectation on what you would see as daily or weekly requirements -- is it:

1. Aggregate (sum/average etc.) of raw requirements at the 15-minute interval to the daily and weekly level? or
2. A weekly (or daily) requirement number that hits the performance goal, e.g., 80% service level, to the week (or day)?

The side effect of the first option would be a day/weekly requirement that hits 80% SL at every 15-minute interval (assuming 80% is the goal). When aggregated to the day/week from this raw number, we assume that there is no scheduling or other staffing inefficiencies, so it may produce a higher (or lower) requirements than operationally possible/feasible.

The side effect of the second option would be that the goal is hit at the day/week level, but not every interval would hit the goal, i.e., some would be higher than 80%, some would be lower. However, at the day/week level, it would aggregated to 80%. This requirement number would incorporate steady-state staffing/scheduling inefficiency derived from historical data, so it would more reflect what is operationally possible/feasible. 

Curious to know your thoughts, cheers!

------------------------------
Bayu Wicaksono
Senior Director, Operations Research & Development
Genesys - Employees

Original Message:
Sent: 02-06-2024 14:30
From: Robert Wakefield-Carl
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

Yes, just the headcount/staffing required at a macro level (daily/weekly) should be sufficient in the UI.  For micro scheduling, that is something for scheduling or capacity planning.  This combined with the 'cone of confidence" would at least give them an idea that they need x or xx agents in a year's time.  

------------------------------
Robert Wakefield-Carl
ttec Digital
Sr. Director - Innovation Architects
Robert.WC@ttecdigital.com
https://www.ttecDigital.com
https://RobertWC.Blogspot.com

Original Message:
Sent: 02-06-2024 10:06
From: Christopher Johnson
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

Robert, if the forecasting feature in CX3 (not the add on for cap planning) included weekly staffing requirements in the UI, along with the ability to enter a "available" FTE # so you could do an over under comparison weekly, and also a shrinkage input to gross up for shrinkage, would that meet your expectations for a WFM offer in CX3 below full blown cap planning?  And cap planning would go farther with specific hiring classes, budgeting, more advanced shrinkage etc... what are your thoughts?

------------------------------
Christopher Johnson
Genesys - Employees

Original Message:
Sent: 02-06-2024 09:51
From: Robert Wakefield-Carl
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

I don't think the 15-minute granularity is an issue, but they have asked for more macro reporting.  I would say we really need Hourly, Daily, Monthly, Quarterly in addition to the micro.  

I don't really like having headcount only in the export - most people find the CSV export pretty ugly and hard to manage.  They would prefer something in the UI.  

------------------------------
Robert Wakefield-Carl
ttec Digital
Sr. Director - Innovation Architects
Robert.WC@ttecdigital.com
https://www.ttecDigital.com
https://RobertWC.Blogspot.com

Original Message:
Sent: 02-06-2024 06:01
From: Rakesh Tailor
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

Long Term forecasting will still be part of GC3 as part of the Continuous Forecasting feature which is planned for later this year.  With Continuous Forecasting, users will be able to get a forecast out to 2 years or more.  Currently we are looking at the forecasting including 15 minute granularity data for the first 58 weeks, then daily granularity out to 104 weeks and then weekly granularity beyond that.

As part of a that forecast export, users will also be able to get the estimated headcount out to 58 weeks at that 15 minute granularity to help with planning.

It would be great to get your feedback on what is proposed above.  Does that granularity and timeframe serve most use cases?

Thanks,

------------------------------
Rakesh Tailor
Vice President, Product Management
Workforce Engagement Management (WEM)

Original Message:
Sent: 02-06-2024 01:02
From: Robert Wakefield-Carl
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

I think there needs to be some negotiation here.  We are sorely missing long-term forecasting and headcount (a subset of capacity planning).  Most users just want to forecast 2-3 years out and have an estimate of headcount requirements.  I agree that that full suite of capacity planning is rich and probably worth the "add-on" price, but we need to give +WEM and GC3 users something that is useful.  If we could just add a headcount estimate, we could make customers see value in adding on the rest of capacity planning.  

------------------------------
Robert Wakefield-Carl
ttec Digital
Sr. Director - Innovation Architects
Robert.WC@ttecdigital.com
https://www.ttecDigital.com
https://RobertWC.Blogspot.com

Original Message:
Sent: 02-01-2024 06:40
From: Rakesh Tailor
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

Our plan around Capacity Planning is to build a very feature rich set capabilities, similar to what was possible with the Decisions product.  This includes:

• Capacity Planning Scenarios
• New Hire Classes
• New Hire Training Lengths and Productivity Factors
• Shrinkage Factors
• Attrition Allocation
• Variable FTE
• Also, eventually:
  • Transfers
  • In / Out Loans
  • Shrinkage Forecasting

Many organizations don't need this level of complexity, so this will be an optional Add On for those that require it.

For those that just need basic information on Staffing Requirements, that will be possible to get from the Schedule View and eventually will be available as an Export as part of the Continuous Forecasting capability coming out later this year.  There we will provide Staffing Requirements out to 58 weeks.

I hope that better explains why this is an add on and not just a feature improvement on top of WFM in GC3/WEM Add On.

------------------------------
Rakesh Tailor
Vice President, Product Management
Recording, Quality, Survey, Speech and Text Analytics
Genesys Cloud

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 01:00
From: Robert Wakefield-Carl
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

I am not sure if you attended the latest roadmap from Genesys, but did anyone else hear the dreaded word "add-on" for the Capacity Planning side of WEM?  That hit me with dread of the days when you added RAM, $1500, Added Media Ports $2500, added Optimizer $480.  It just goes against all the messaging about GC3 as the "all-in-one" subscription.  I hope this is not the trends - Agent Assist Add-on, WEM Capacity Add-on, what-ever-else Add-on.   I understand that the development takes money and resources, but if we don't want to be like every other CCaaS vendor out there and start to nickel and dime customers with "add-ons', then I think Genesys cloud instead consider increasing the license costs and include the features. 

What do you all say?   

#Forecasting
#Scheduling

------------------------------
Robert Wakefield-Carl
ttec Digital
Sr. Director - Innovation Architects
Robert.WC@ttecdigital.com
https://www.ttecDigital.com
https://RobertWC.Blogspot.com
------------------------------

I would choose option 2 because it will be closer to reality.  I am curious to understand how a FTE will be defined in the capacity planner for different regions (US_C, LATAM, EMEA, APAC etc.,).

Cheers!

Thank you for your input, Robert, I have a question regarding the expectation on what you would see as daily or weekly requirements -- is it:

1. Aggregate (sum/average etc.) of raw requirements at the 15-minute interval to the daily and weekly level? or
2. A weekly (or daily) requirement number that hits the performance goal, e.g., 80% service level, to the week (or day)?

The side effect of the first option would be a day/weekly requirement that hits 80% SL at every 15-minute interval (assuming 80% is the goal). When aggregated to the day/week from this raw number, we assume that there is no scheduling or other staffing inefficiencies, so it may produce a higher (or lower) requirements than operationally possible/feasible.

The side effect of the second option would be that the goal is hit at the day/week level, but not every interval would hit the goal, i.e., some would be higher than 80%, some would be lower. However, at the day/week level, it would aggregated to 80%. This requirement number would incorporate steady-state staffing/scheduling inefficiency derived from historical data, so it would more reflect what is operationally possible/feasible. 

Curious to know your thoughts, cheers!

------------------------------
Bayu Wicaksono
Senior Director, Operations Research & Development
Genesys - Employees

Original Message:
Sent: 02-06-2024 14:30
From: Robert Wakefield-Carl
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

Yes, just the headcount/staffing required at a macro level (daily/weekly) should be sufficient in the UI.  For micro scheduling, that is something for scheduling or capacity planning.  This combined with the 'cone of confidence" would at least give them an idea that they need x or xx agents in a year's time.  

------------------------------
Robert Wakefield-Carl
ttec Digital
Sr. Director - Innovation Architects
Robert.WC@ttecdigital.com
https://www.ttecDigital.com
https://RobertWC.Blogspot.com

Original Message:
Sent: 02-06-2024 10:06
From: Christopher Johnson
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

Robert, if the forecasting feature in CX3 (not the add on for cap planning) included weekly staffing requirements in the UI, along with the ability to enter a "available" FTE # so you could do an over under comparison weekly, and also a shrinkage input to gross up for shrinkage, would that meet your expectations for a WFM offer in CX3 below full blown cap planning?  And cap planning would go farther with specific hiring classes, budgeting, more advanced shrinkage etc... what are your thoughts?

------------------------------
Christopher Johnson
Genesys - Employees

Original Message:
Sent: 02-06-2024 09:51
From: Robert Wakefield-Carl
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

I don't think the 15-minute granularity is an issue, but they have asked for more macro reporting.  I would say we really need Hourly, Daily, Monthly, Quarterly in addition to the micro.  

I don't really like having headcount only in the export - most people find the CSV export pretty ugly and hard to manage.  They would prefer something in the UI.  

------------------------------
Robert Wakefield-Carl
ttec Digital
Sr. Director - Innovation Architects
Robert.WC@ttecdigital.com
https://www.ttecDigital.com
https://RobertWC.Blogspot.com

Original Message:
Sent: 02-06-2024 06:01
From: Rakesh Tailor
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

Long Term forecasting will still be part of GC3 as part of the Continuous Forecasting feature which is planned for later this year.  With Continuous Forecasting, users will be able to get a forecast out to 2 years or more.  Currently we are looking at the forecasting including 15 minute granularity data for the first 58 weeks, then daily granularity out to 104 weeks and then weekly granularity beyond that.

As part of a that forecast export, users will also be able to get the estimated headcount out to 58 weeks at that 15 minute granularity to help with planning.

It would be great to get your feedback on what is proposed above.  Does that granularity and timeframe serve most use cases?

Thanks,

------------------------------
Rakesh Tailor
Vice President, Product Management
Workforce Engagement Management (WEM)

Original Message:
Sent: 02-06-2024 01:02
From: Robert Wakefield-Carl
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

I think there needs to be some negotiation here.  We are sorely missing long-term forecasting and headcount (a subset of capacity planning).  Most users just want to forecast 2-3 years out and have an estimate of headcount requirements.  I agree that that full suite of capacity planning is rich and probably worth the "add-on" price, but we need to give +WEM and GC3 users something that is useful.  If we could just add a headcount estimate, we could make customers see value in adding on the rest of capacity planning.  

------------------------------
Robert Wakefield-Carl
ttec Digital
Sr. Director - Innovation Architects
Robert.WC@ttecdigital.com
https://www.ttecDigital.com
https://RobertWC.Blogspot.com

Original Message:
Sent: 02-01-2024 06:40
From: Rakesh Tailor
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

Our plan around Capacity Planning is to build a very feature rich set capabilities, similar to what was possible with the Decisions product.  This includes:

• Capacity Planning Scenarios
• New Hire Classes
• New Hire Training Lengths and Productivity Factors
• Shrinkage Factors
• Attrition Allocation
• Variable FTE
• Also, eventually:
  • Transfers
  • In / Out Loans
  • Shrinkage Forecasting

Many organizations don't need this level of complexity, so this will be an optional Add On for those that require it.

For those that just need basic information on Staffing Requirements, that will be possible to get from the Schedule View and eventually will be available as an Export as part of the Continuous Forecasting capability coming out later this year.  There we will provide Staffing Requirements out to 58 weeks.

I hope that better explains why this is an add on and not just a feature improvement on top of WFM in GC3/WEM Add On.

------------------------------
Rakesh Tailor
Vice President, Product Management
Recording, Quality, Survey, Speech and Text Analytics
Genesys Cloud

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 01:00
From: Robert Wakefield-Carl
Subject: Capacity planning as an "add-on"

I am not sure if you attended the latest roadmap from Genesys, but did anyone else hear the dreaded word "add-on" for the Capacity Planning side of WEM?  That hit me with dread of the days when you added RAM, $1500, Added Media Ports $2500, added Optimizer $480.  It just goes against all the messaging about GC3 as the "all-in-one" subscription.  I hope this is not the trends - Agent Assist Add-on, WEM Capacity Add-on, what-ever-else Add-on.   I understand that the development takes money and resources, but if we don't want to be like every other CCaaS vendor out there and start to nickel and dime customers with "add-ons', then I think Genesys cloud instead consider increasing the license costs and include the features. 

What do you all say?   

#Forecasting
#Scheduling

------------------------------
Robert Wakefield-Carl
ttec Digital
Sr. Director - Innovation Architects
Robert.WC@ttecdigital.com
https://www.ttecDigital.com
https://RobertWC.Blogspot.com
------------------------------