Workforce Engagement Management

Thank you, Jay, I appreciate the quick response and the links.

I reviewed the documentation, but I'm still unclear on one piece. The Intraday columns mention "agents on the schedule/in the BU/part of the planning group," but in real‑time operations there are often agents who jump in to help a queue even though they are:

• not on the schedule for that MU or planning group
• not normally part of that planning group
• but are still logging into the queue/skills and taking interactions

The part I'm trying to verify is this:

If those off‑group agents handle interactions, do they contribute to the Actuals shown in Intraday Monitoring (Actual Agents, SL impact, ASA, variance, occupancy, etc.)?
Or does Intraday strictly ignore them because they don't have a schedule inside that planning group?

The behavior we're seeing suggests that overflow or assisting agents seem to contribute to performance metrics, even when they are not scheduled in the MU's planning group, but I want to confirm whether that is expected.

Also, is there any reporting within Intraday (or elsewhere in Performance/Insights) that shows which specific agents contributed to Actual staffing for a given interval, even if they didn't have a schedule in that MU?

Thank you again for your help - just want to make sure our interpretation of the Intraday logic is correct.

Thank you, Jay, I appreciate the quick response and the links.

I reviewed the documentation, but I'm still unclear on one piece. The Intraday columns mention "agents on the schedule/in the BU/part of the planning group," but in real‑time operations there are often agents who jump in to help a queue even though they are:

• not on the schedule for that MU or planning group
• not normally part of that planning group
• but are still logging into the queue/skills and taking interactions

The part I'm trying to verify is this:

If those off‑group agents handle interactions, do they contribute to the Actuals shown in Intraday Monitoring (Actual Agents, SL impact, ASA, variance, occupancy, etc.)?
Or does Intraday strictly ignore them because they don't have a schedule inside that planning group?

The behavior we're seeing suggests that overflow or assisting agents seem to contribute to performance metrics, even when they are not scheduled in the MU's planning group, but I want to confirm whether that is expected.

Also, is there any reporting within Intraday (or elsewhere in Performance/Insights) that shows which specific agents contributed to Actual staffing for a given interval, even if they didn't have a schedule in that MU?

Thank you again for your help - just want to make sure our interpretation of the Intraday logic is correct.

Thank you, Jay, I appreciate the quick response and the links.

I reviewed the documentation, but I'm still unclear on one piece. The Intraday columns mention "agents on the schedule/in the BU/part of the planning group," but in real‑time operations there are often agents who jump in to help a queue even though they are:

• not on the schedule for that MU or planning group
• not normally part of that planning group
• but are still logging into the queue/skills and taking interactions

The part I'm trying to verify is this:

If those off‑group agents handle interactions, do they contribute to the Actuals shown in Intraday Monitoring (Actual Agents, SL impact, ASA, variance, occupancy, etc.)?
Or does Intraday strictly ignore them because they don't have a schedule inside that planning group?

The behavior we're seeing suggests that overflow or assisting agents seem to contribute to performance metrics, even when they are not scheduled in the MU's planning group, but I want to confirm whether that is expected.

Also, is there any reporting within Intraday (or elsewhere in Performance/Insights) that shows which specific agents contributed to Actual staffing for a given interval, even if they didn't have a schedule in that MU?

Thank you again for your help - just want to make sure our interpretation of the Intraday logic is correct.