Andrea,
Agreed that if there is a lot of movements this could become a challenge. There is an idea to change how adherence is reported, which I see that you commented and voted for. Thank you! I think we will see this change in the future.
Lots to unpack here …
With the 5-6 week ~4 published... are agents' newly trained queue/skill assignments missing in schedules, requires a reschedule or regeneration to capture new agent capabilities?
Do they really need to move between MU's, i.e. are adherence targets different between MU's?, Time Off Limit groupings? ... My thoughts around training and development (upskilling), the best practice is to utilize a training and development pathway via PG's where you train then add new queue / skills as proficiency is gained the agent is automagically present in their new PG's for rescheduling and forecast/schedule generation cycles. They don't need to be moved to a new MU to be scheduled against workload.
Some additional thoughts...
- Limit MU movement and create development path style PG's, assign agents new queue/skills as they rise in proficiency, aligned with scheduling cycles?
- Is utilizing Work Teams for adherence reporting groupings a possibility for this purpose? Regardless of MU transitions Work Teams would remain an in tact group of agents. (some maintenance required)
- Are you able to pull Adherence data into a data repository via API and leverage a BI tool for the purpose of reporting agent adherence?
- Utilize temporary placeholder Training / Development MU for transition periods.
Let me know should you have follow ups.
Thanks,
Chuck
------------------------------
Chuck Swain
Genesys
WEM Leadership
------------------------------