Workforce Engagement Management

Hello Community, 

I'm looking for information related to how Genesys Cloud WFM currently handles multi-skilling scheduling.  I am aware that Genesys is generating workload schedules based on the planning groups that agent can handled, however I am wondering if there is a way to prioritize agents' schedules according to their skill proficiency.

Additionally, I'd like to know how Genesys determines which agent gets scheduled first.

Any insights will be highly appreciated. 

Thanks! 

Hi Tam, 

When scheduling, Genesys Cloud WFM assumes that the agent is equally skilled and proficient in all the Planning Groups that they can handle.
During the schedule generation process, the optimal schedule is created through simulation using a mix of scheduling models and predictive AI. The resulting shifts are allocated randomly to the agent who can cover the type of interaction and can work the shift based on their Work Plan constraints.

Paul

Hello Community, 

I'm looking for information related to how Genesys Cloud WFM currently handles multi-skilling scheduling.  I am aware that Genesys is generating workload schedules based on the planning groups that agent can handled, however I am wondering if there is a way to prioritize agents' schedules according to their skill proficiency.

Additionally, I'd like to know how Genesys determines which agent gets scheduled first.

Any insights will be highly appreciated. 

Thanks! 

Thanks Paul for the reply! 

Do you know whether Genesys accounts for agent utilization when determining the amount of staff that is needed? 

Also, on a slightly unrelated note, if we have multiple business lines that can cover one another to handle overflow, do you have any suggestions or considerations for the BU configuration that may impact forecasts and staffing?

Again, thank you for sharing your insight!

Hi Tam, 

When scheduling, Genesys Cloud WFM assumes that the agent is equally skilled and proficient in all the Planning Groups that they can handle.
During the schedule generation process, the optimal schedule is created through simulation using a mix of scheduling models and predictive AI. The resulting shifts are allocated randomly to the agent who can cover the type of interaction and can work the shift based on their Work Plan constraints.

Paul

Hello Community, 

I'm looking for information related to how Genesys Cloud WFM currently handles multi-skilling scheduling.  I am aware that Genesys is generating workload schedules based on the planning groups that agent can handled, however I am wondering if there is a way to prioritize agents' schedules according to their skill proficiency.

Additionally, I'd like to know how Genesys determines which agent gets scheduled first.

Any insights will be highly appreciated. 

Thanks! 

Utilization among other things is something we model by looking at what actually occurs rather than what is configured. Just because someone could take three concurrent chats, does not mean that occurs in practice and certainly does not all the time. I'd caution about too much utilization - it drives up AHT and can negatively impact customer satisfaction.

Shared load/resources should not span multiple BUs. This is stated in several resource center articles all linked off the main WFM area. For true overflow cases, I would defer to those more field oriented or on the consultant side of things. In the past I have recommended something along the lines of the following example:

BU1: PrimaryQ1; OverflowQ2
BU2: PrimaryQ2; OverflowQ1

Basically primary queue means that BU primarily handles the volume and thus is forecast/staffed and in some circumstances you must overflow to another queue that is forecast/staffed in a different BU. Perhaps the easier thing or something you would do first, is to not enqueue an interaction until you know where it should go (e.g., looking at things like estimated wait times, queue depths, number of agents on queue, etc.) - if you can make the determination earlier if an interaction should go to an overflow queue then do that versus a reactive flow-out later.

Thanks Paul for the reply! 

Do you know whether Genesys accounts for agent utilization when determining the amount of staff that is needed? 

Also, on a slightly unrelated note, if we have multiple business lines that can cover one another to handle overflow, do you have any suggestions or considerations for the BU configuration that may impact forecasts and staffing?

Again, thank you for sharing your insight!

Hi Tam, 

When scheduling, Genesys Cloud WFM assumes that the agent is equally skilled and proficient in all the Planning Groups that they can handle.
During the schedule generation process, the optimal schedule is created through simulation using a mix of scheduling models and predictive AI. The resulting shifts are allocated randomly to the agent who can cover the type of interaction and can work the shift based on their Work Plan constraints.

Paul

Hello Community, 

I'm looking for information related to how Genesys Cloud WFM currently handles multi-skilling scheduling.  I am aware that Genesys is generating workload schedules based on the planning groups that agent can handled, however I am wondering if there is a way to prioritize agents' schedules according to their skill proficiency.

Additionally, I'd like to know how Genesys determines which agent gets scheduled first.

Any insights will be highly appreciated. 

Thanks! 

Hi Jay! I have some follow up questions...

I understand your BU set up, but I believe this makes the assumption that the team members don't share OTHER work load.  What happens if the agents from you BU1 and you BU2 do act as overflow for Primary Q1/Q2 etc. but also share a separate queue/skill like "Sales; Potential Client."  Then they should be in the same BU to appropriate forecast and schedule for Sales; Potential Client, right? 

Additionally, if team members can work both Primary Q1 and Sales Q, how does the system account for these multi-skilled agents in the SChedule's Required line? I have seen in some instances it considers multi-skill agents, and more recently in others, it does not.  It says "I need one person for Q1 and one person for sales" essentially saying I need two people where one would have sufficed.  Which of these is accurate? 

Utilization among other things is something we model by looking at what actually occurs rather than what is configured. Just because someone could take three concurrent chats, does not mean that occurs in practice and certainly does not all the time. I'd caution about too much utilization - it drives up AHT and can negatively impact customer satisfaction.

Shared load/resources should not span multiple BUs. This is stated in several resource center articles all linked off the main WFM area. For true overflow cases, I would defer to those more field oriented or on the consultant side of things. In the past I have recommended something along the lines of the following example:

BU1: PrimaryQ1; OverflowQ2
BU2: PrimaryQ2; OverflowQ1

Basically primary queue means that BU primarily handles the volume and thus is forecast/staffed and in some circumstances you must overflow to another queue that is forecast/staffed in a different BU. Perhaps the easier thing or something you would do first, is to not enqueue an interaction until you know where it should go (e.g., looking at things like estimated wait times, queue depths, number of agents on queue, etc.) - if you can make the determination earlier if an interaction should go to an overflow queue then do that versus a reactive flow-out later.

Thanks Paul for the reply! 

Do you know whether Genesys accounts for agent utilization when determining the amount of staff that is needed? 

Also, on a slightly unrelated note, if we have multiple business lines that can cover one another to handle overflow, do you have any suggestions or considerations for the BU configuration that may impact forecasts and staffing?

Again, thank you for sharing your insight!

Hi Tam, 

When scheduling, Genesys Cloud WFM assumes that the agent is equally skilled and proficient in all the Planning Groups that they can handle.
During the schedule generation process, the optimal schedule is created through simulation using a mix of scheduling models and predictive AI. The resulting shifts are allocated randomly to the agent who can cover the type of interaction and can work the shift based on their Work Plan constraints.

Paul

Hello Community, 

I'm looking for information related to how Genesys Cloud WFM currently handles multi-skilling scheduling.  I am aware that Genesys is generating workload schedules based on the planning groups that agent can handled, however I am wondering if there is a way to prioritize agents' schedules according to their skill proficiency.

Additionally, I'd like to know how Genesys determines which agent gets scheduled first.

Any insights will be highly appreciated. 

Thanks! 

Hi Shelby,

Yes, it's definitely best practice to keep everyone who can handle the same type of work within the same Business Unit. Depending on how your organisation is structured, you might consider using Management Units to separate groups based on their primary role or team. For example, if Sales and Service are managed independently, having them as separate Management Units could make sense. Because they're still part of the same Business Unit, they can provide overflow support for each other's primary channels and help share the wider workload.

When it comes to generating staffing requirements and schedules, we use advanced simulation models that assume everyone in a Planning Group has the same level of proficiency. The engine looks at the forecasted interactions and, based on the Planning Group composition and Work Plan constraints, determines who could be scheduled to handle that demand.

Because the simulation is solving for the entire schedule period all at once, things can get quite complex. Sometimes, the results may "not look right" at first glance - they might be due to earlier shift decisions, patterns being followed, or simply what the engine calculates as the most efficient outcome overall.

If you'd like a deeper dive into the specifics of your scenario, the best next step would be to raise a support ticket. That way, we can take a closer look at the data and the choices the scheduling engine made along the way.

Hope this helps, 

Paul

Hi Jay! I have some follow up questions...

I understand your BU set up, but I believe this makes the assumption that the team members don't share OTHER work load.  What happens if the agents from you BU1 and you BU2 do act as overflow for Primary Q1/Q2 etc. but also share a separate queue/skill like "Sales; Potential Client."  Then they should be in the same BU to appropriate forecast and schedule for Sales; Potential Client, right? 

Additionally, if team members can work both Primary Q1 and Sales Q, how does the system account for these multi-skilled agents in the SChedule's Required line? I have seen in some instances it considers multi-skill agents, and more recently in others, it does not.  It says "I need one person for Q1 and one person for sales" essentially saying I need two people where one would have sufficed.  Which of these is accurate? 

Utilization among other things is something we model by looking at what actually occurs rather than what is configured. Just because someone could take three concurrent chats, does not mean that occurs in practice and certainly does not all the time. I'd caution about too much utilization - it drives up AHT and can negatively impact customer satisfaction.

Shared load/resources should not span multiple BUs. This is stated in several resource center articles all linked off the main WFM area. For true overflow cases, I would defer to those more field oriented or on the consultant side of things. In the past I have recommended something along the lines of the following example:

BU1: PrimaryQ1; OverflowQ2
BU2: PrimaryQ2; OverflowQ1

Basically primary queue means that BU primarily handles the volume and thus is forecast/staffed and in some circumstances you must overflow to another queue that is forecast/staffed in a different BU. Perhaps the easier thing or something you would do first, is to not enqueue an interaction until you know where it should go (e.g., looking at things like estimated wait times, queue depths, number of agents on queue, etc.) - if you can make the determination earlier if an interaction should go to an overflow queue then do that versus a reactive flow-out later.

Thanks Paul for the reply! 

Do you know whether Genesys accounts for agent utilization when determining the amount of staff that is needed? 

Also, on a slightly unrelated note, if we have multiple business lines that can cover one another to handle overflow, do you have any suggestions or considerations for the BU configuration that may impact forecasts and staffing?

Again, thank you for sharing your insight!

Hi Tam, 

When scheduling, Genesys Cloud WFM assumes that the agent is equally skilled and proficient in all the Planning Groups that they can handle.
During the schedule generation process, the optimal schedule is created through simulation using a mix of scheduling models and predictive AI. The resulting shifts are allocated randomly to the agent who can cover the type of interaction and can work the shift based on their Work Plan constraints.

Paul

Hello Community, 

I'm looking for information related to how Genesys Cloud WFM currently handles multi-skilling scheduling.  I am aware that Genesys is generating workload schedules based on the planning groups that agent can handled, however I am wondering if there is a way to prioritize agents' schedules according to their skill proficiency.

Additionally, I'd like to know how Genesys determines which agent gets scheduled first.

Any insights will be highly appreciated. 

Thanks! 

Paul, I submitted a ticket and, after a month of little to no helpful response, received the classic "Functioning as expected" which doesn't help me understand why/what exactly the data is saying. 

The organization is currently forecasting using a historical data import leading back to 06/2022 up to 5/17/2025 to account for languages that are currently not being assigned in Genesys Cloud (although they are actively making/taking calls through Genesys Cloud routing).  We are already working on the Language assignment challenge. 

Data in historical data import is accurate to planning groups set up (Queue, Skill, Language combinations); the planning groups are NOT accounting for the Native Genesys Data with no language assignment. This means we are not doubling the data. 

When forecasting, the forecast accuracy continues to be quite low all things considered.  The Forecast is estimating 200+ more calls on Saturdays than have historically been received.  Additionally, noticing that day to day totals within the week are not forecasting accurately either. Fridays are showing as expecting higher numbers than Mondays. 

When a forecast is assigned to a schedule, it is forecasting Required Staff over twice what a traditional Erling calculation would produce.  In further investigating, it is presenting completely individual headcount forecasts (14 for sales, 44 for service=58 total headcount).  Agents are skilled/queued for both queues in most instances. Why is the system indicating that we need two people where one would do?  Why is it not considering their multiple planning group memberships?

We have additionally tried testing with different service level goals.  Original issue was noticed with a 65/30 SLA and ASA 30 seconds.  Then updated to  65/30 SLA and ASA 2 Min ( to better align with their actual ASA).  NO change.  Then updated again to 65/120 SLA and ASA 2 Min. No Change.  Then updated again to 65/120 SLA and NO ASA, no change.  

Need help understanding why we are forecasting our headcount so high, why our forecast volumes are off, etc. 

To add to the above: we do NOT have team members taking calls that are not accounted for in the planning groups.  The team is managing the volume with ~20 people and an ASA of 2 minutes; required staff is seeming to indicate we need over 60 people to accomplish the same goal. 

Any insight you could provide would be much appreciated; as you can probably tell, we have tried a lot of troubleshooting and are getting frustrated with lack of helpful information and response and this is becoming a heavy lift with inaccurate information. 

Hi Shelby,

Yes, it's definitely best practice to keep everyone who can handle the same type of work within the same Business Unit. Depending on how your organisation is structured, you might consider using Management Units to separate groups based on their primary role or team. For example, if Sales and Service are managed independently, having them as separate Management Units could make sense. Because they're still part of the same Business Unit, they can provide overflow support for each other's primary channels and help share the wider workload.

When it comes to generating staffing requirements and schedules, we use advanced simulation models that assume everyone in a Planning Group has the same level of proficiency. The engine looks at the forecasted interactions and, based on the Planning Group composition and Work Plan constraints, determines who could be scheduled to handle that demand.

Because the simulation is solving for the entire schedule period all at once, things can get quite complex. Sometimes, the results may "not look right" at first glance - they might be due to earlier shift decisions, patterns being followed, or simply what the engine calculates as the most efficient outcome overall.

If you'd like a deeper dive into the specifics of your scenario, the best next step would be to raise a support ticket. That way, we can take a closer look at the data and the choices the scheduling engine made along the way.

Hope this helps, 

Paul

Hi Jay! I have some follow up questions...

I understand your BU set up, but I believe this makes the assumption that the team members don't share OTHER work load.  What happens if the agents from you BU1 and you BU2 do act as overflow for Primary Q1/Q2 etc. but also share a separate queue/skill like "Sales; Potential Client."  Then they should be in the same BU to appropriate forecast and schedule for Sales; Potential Client, right? 

Additionally, if team members can work both Primary Q1 and Sales Q, how does the system account for these multi-skilled agents in the SChedule's Required line? I have seen in some instances it considers multi-skill agents, and more recently in others, it does not.  It says "I need one person for Q1 and one person for sales" essentially saying I need two people where one would have sufficed.  Which of these is accurate? 

Utilization among other things is something we model by looking at what actually occurs rather than what is configured. Just because someone could take three concurrent chats, does not mean that occurs in practice and certainly does not all the time. I'd caution about too much utilization - it drives up AHT and can negatively impact customer satisfaction.

Shared load/resources should not span multiple BUs. This is stated in several resource center articles all linked off the main WFM area. For true overflow cases, I would defer to those more field oriented or on the consultant side of things. In the past I have recommended something along the lines of the following example:

BU1: PrimaryQ1; OverflowQ2
BU2: PrimaryQ2; OverflowQ1

Basically primary queue means that BU primarily handles the volume and thus is forecast/staffed and in some circumstances you must overflow to another queue that is forecast/staffed in a different BU. Perhaps the easier thing or something you would do first, is to not enqueue an interaction until you know where it should go (e.g., looking at things like estimated wait times, queue depths, number of agents on queue, etc.) - if you can make the determination earlier if an interaction should go to an overflow queue then do that versus a reactive flow-out later.

Thanks Paul for the reply! 

Do you know whether Genesys accounts for agent utilization when determining the amount of staff that is needed? 

Also, on a slightly unrelated note, if we have multiple business lines that can cover one another to handle overflow, do you have any suggestions or considerations for the BU configuration that may impact forecasts and staffing?

Again, thank you for sharing your insight!

Hi Tam, 

When scheduling, Genesys Cloud WFM assumes that the agent is equally skilled and proficient in all the Planning Groups that they can handle.
During the schedule generation process, the optimal schedule is created through simulation using a mix of scheduling models and predictive AI. The resulting shifts are allocated randomly to the agent who can cover the type of interaction and can work the shift based on their Work Plan constraints.

Paul

Hello Community, 

I'm looking for information related to how Genesys Cloud WFM currently handles multi-skilling scheduling.  I am aware that Genesys is generating workload schedules based on the planning groups that agent can handled, however I am wondering if there is a way to prioritize agents' schedules according to their skill proficiency.

Additionally, I'd like to know how Genesys determines which agent gets scheduled first.

Any insights will be highly appreciated. 

Thanks!