We had a third party company implement Genesys for us about a year ago. Nobody in our company had used Genesys before at that point so we were happy to follow any and all suggestions made by this implementation team. 

Like most call centers we have multiple queues that each have slightly different call flows. The way the implementation team handled this was by having a single in-queue flow that each queue shared. At the top of this flow is a switch statement that branches depending on the name of the queue. Although the implementation team left us with a couple of major bugs, we ironed those out and have been using this one in-queue flow ever since.

I've had to create a couple of new queues recently, and it dawned on me that it might be more simple to have a designated in-queue flow for each queue rather than having one in-queue flow that they all share. My question is this: What is gained by having one in-queue flow that has several branching paths as opposed to one flow for each queue? In my mind it's cleaner and makes more sense to have one in-queue flow for each queue, but I'm a little hesitant to make this change because the implementation team (who I assume are well-versed in this type of thing) chose to do it this other way. Is this just a personal preference issue or am I missing something?

Hi Samuel

Another way of doing this instead of having switches all over your in-queue flow is to use variables and have each queue's treatment entered into a data table.  Unless there's some major differences in how you want your in-queue experience to go, you can cover most things this way.

We had a third party company implement Genesys for us about a year ago. Nobody in our company had used Genesys before at that point so we were happy to follow any and all suggestions made by this implementation team. 

Like most call centers we have multiple queues that each have slightly different call flows. The way the implementation team handled this was by having a single in-queue flow that each queue shared. At the top of this flow is a switch statement that branches depending on the name of the queue. Although the implementation team left us with a couple of major bugs, we ironed those out and have been using this one in-queue flow ever since.

I've had to create a couple of new queues recently, and it dawned on me that it might be more simple to have a designated in-queue flow for each queue rather than having one in-queue flow that they all share. My question is this: What is gained by having one in-queue flow that has several branching paths as opposed to one flow for each queue? In my mind it's cleaner and makes more sense to have one in-queue flow for each queue, but I'm a little hesitant to make this change because the implementation team (who I assume are well-versed in this type of thing) chose to do it this other way. Is this just a personal preference issue or am I missing something?

Hi Samuel

Another way of doing this instead of having switches all over your in-queue flow is to use variables and have each queue's treatment entered into a data table.  Unless there's some major differences in how you want your in-queue experience to go, you can cover most things this way.

------------------------------
Vaun McCarthy

Original Message:
Sent: 03-09-2023 13:06
From: Samuel Urquhart
Subject: One in-queue flow or multiple

We had a third party company implement Genesys for us about a year ago. Nobody in our company had used Genesys before at that point so we were happy to follow any and all suggestions made by this implementation team. 

Like most call centers we have multiple queues that each have slightly different call flows. The way the implementation team handled this was by having a single in-queue flow that each queue shared. At the top of this flow is a switch statement that branches depending on the name of the queue. Although the implementation team left us with a couple of major bugs, we ironed those out and have been using this one in-queue flow ever since.

I've had to create a couple of new queues recently, and it dawned on me that it might be more simple to have a designated in-queue flow for each queue rather than having one in-queue flow that they all share. My question is this: What is gained by having one in-queue flow that has several branching paths as opposed to one flow for each queue? In my mind it's cleaner and makes more sense to have one in-queue flow for each queue, but I'm a little hesitant to make this change because the implementation team (who I assume are well-versed in this type of thing) chose to do it this other way. Is this just a personal preference issue or am I missing something?

#ArchitectureandDesign
#Routing(ACD/IVR)

------------------------------
Samuel Urquhart
Greenix Pest Control
------------------------------

We had a third party company implement Genesys for us about a year ago. Nobody in our company had used Genesys before at that point so we were happy to follow any and all suggestions made by this implementation team. 

Like most call centers we have multiple queues that each have slightly different call flows. The way the implementation team handled this was by having a single in-queue flow that each queue shared. At the top of this flow is a switch statement that branches depending on the name of the queue. Although the implementation team left us with a couple of major bugs, we ironed those out and have been using this one in-queue flow ever since.

I've had to create a couple of new queues recently, and it dawned on me that it might be more simple to have a designated in-queue flow for each queue rather than having one in-queue flow that they all share. My question is this: What is gained by having one in-queue flow that has several branching paths as opposed to one flow for each queue? In my mind it's cleaner and makes more sense to have one in-queue flow for each queue, but I'm a little hesitant to make this change because the implementation team (who I assume are well-versed in this type of thing) chose to do it this other way. Is this just a personal preference issue or am I missing something?

It's possible that you'll run out of available paths on your switch if you keep adding queues.  Does each of your queues have it's own distinct treatment?  We have multiple in queue flows, but it's not a 1:1 ratio.  Their grouped together by how the calls are treated.  For instance, we have queues that offer a queue voicemail every 5 minutes.  Those are all assigned to the same in queue flow, and the voicemails stay in the queue that they were originally in.  

I would try to avoid the 1:1 ratio of queues and in queue flows if at all possible.  

We had a third party company implement Genesys for us about a year ago. Nobody in our company had used Genesys before at that point so we were happy to follow any and all suggestions made by this implementation team. 

Like most call centers we have multiple queues that each have slightly different call flows. The way the implementation team handled this was by having a single in-queue flow that each queue shared. At the top of this flow is a switch statement that branches depending on the name of the queue. Although the implementation team left us with a couple of major bugs, we ironed those out and have been using this one in-queue flow ever since.

I've had to create a couple of new queues recently, and it dawned on me that it might be more simple to have a designated in-queue flow for each queue rather than having one in-queue flow that they all share. My question is this: What is gained by having one in-queue flow that has several branching paths as opposed to one flow for each queue? In my mind it's cleaner and makes more sense to have one in-queue flow for each queue, but I'm a little hesitant to make this change because the implementation team (who I assume are well-versed in this type of thing) chose to do it this other way. Is this just a personal preference issue or am I missing something?

We had a third party company implement Genesys for us about a year ago. Nobody in our company had used Genesys before at that point so we were happy to follow any and all suggestions made by this implementation team. 

Like most call centers we have multiple queues that each have slightly different call flows. The way the implementation team handled this was by having a single in-queue flow that each queue shared. At the top of this flow is a switch statement that branches depending on the name of the queue. Although the implementation team left us with a couple of major bugs, we ironed those out and have been using this one in-queue flow ever since.

I've had to create a couple of new queues recently, and it dawned on me that it might be more simple to have a designated in-queue flow for each queue rather than having one in-queue flow that they all share. My question is this: What is gained by having one in-queue flow that has several branching paths as opposed to one flow for each queue? In my mind it's cleaner and makes more sense to have one in-queue flow for each queue, but I'm a little hesitant to make this change because the implementation team (who I assume are well-versed in this type of thing) chose to do it this other way. Is this just a personal preference issue or am I missing something?

Others have mentioned a possible solution, I guess the benefits of having a single flow are it is easier to make changes inside one flow rather than having to apply to multiple different flows. E.g. If you are using a hold message prompt in each queue and update it, you only have to republish one flow rather than each individual in-queue flow. 

But it has its drawbacks too. 

We had a third party company implement Genesys for us about a year ago. Nobody in our company had used Genesys before at that point so we were happy to follow any and all suggestions made by this implementation team. 

Like most call centers we have multiple queues that each have slightly different call flows. The way the implementation team handled this was by having a single in-queue flow that each queue shared. At the top of this flow is a switch statement that branches depending on the name of the queue. Although the implementation team left us with a couple of major bugs, we ironed those out and have been using this one in-queue flow ever since.

I've had to create a couple of new queues recently, and it dawned on me that it might be more simple to have a designated in-queue flow for each queue rather than having one in-queue flow that they all share. My question is this: What is gained by having one in-queue flow that has several branching paths as opposed to one flow for each queue? In my mind it's cleaner and makes more sense to have one in-queue flow for each queue, but I'm a little hesitant to make this change because the implementation team (who I assume are well-versed in this type of thing) chose to do it this other way. Is this just a personal preference issue or am I missing something?

I recommend the "find user prompt"-option in flows. It loads the newest version of the prompt, so you can change prompts without republishing the flow(s) every time.

Others have mentioned a possible solution, I guess the benefits of having a single flow are it is easier to make changes inside one flow rather than having to apply to multiple different flows. E.g. If you are using a hold message prompt in each queue and update it, you only have to republish one flow rather than each individual in-queue flow. 

But it has its drawbacks too. 

We had a third party company implement Genesys for us about a year ago. Nobody in our company had used Genesys before at that point so we were happy to follow any and all suggestions made by this implementation team. 

Like most call centers we have multiple queues that each have slightly different call flows. The way the implementation team handled this was by having a single in-queue flow that each queue shared. At the top of this flow is a switch statement that branches depending on the name of the queue. Although the implementation team left us with a couple of major bugs, we ironed those out and have been using this one in-queue flow ever since.

I've had to create a couple of new queues recently, and it dawned on me that it might be more simple to have a designated in-queue flow for each queue rather than having one in-queue flow that they all share. My question is this: What is gained by having one in-queue flow that has several branching paths as opposed to one flow for each queue? In my mind it's cleaner and makes more sense to have one in-queue flow for each queue, but I'm a little hesitant to make this change because the implementation team (who I assume are well-versed in this type of thing) chose to do it this other way. Is this just a personal preference issue or am I missing something?

I agree, although it does break the Dependency viewers!

TBH, I don't understand why Genesys require Flows to be re-published when updating a Prompt. For me, it removes much of the value of having fully encapsulated and dereferenced prompts in the first place!

I'm sure they have their reasons....

I recommend the "find user prompt"-option in flows. It loads the newest version of the prompt, so you can change prompts without republishing the flow(s) every time.

Others have mentioned a possible solution, I guess the benefits of having a single flow are it is easier to make changes inside one flow rather than having to apply to multiple different flows. E.g. If you are using a hold message prompt in each queue and update it, you only have to republish one flow rather than each individual in-queue flow. 

But it has its drawbacks too. 

We had a third party company implement Genesys for us about a year ago. Nobody in our company had used Genesys before at that point so we were happy to follow any and all suggestions made by this implementation team. 

Like most call centers we have multiple queues that each have slightly different call flows. The way the implementation team handled this was by having a single in-queue flow that each queue shared. At the top of this flow is a switch statement that branches depending on the name of the queue. Although the implementation team left us with a couple of major bugs, we ironed those out and have been using this one in-queue flow ever since.

I've had to create a couple of new queues recently, and it dawned on me that it might be more simple to have a designated in-queue flow for each queue rather than having one in-queue flow that they all share. My question is this: What is gained by having one in-queue flow that has several branching paths as opposed to one flow for each queue? In my mind it's cleaner and makes more sense to have one in-queue flow for each queue, but I'm a little hesitant to make this change because the implementation team (who I assume are well-versed in this type of thing) chose to do it this other way. Is this just a personal preference issue or am I missing something?

Hi Paul,

if you use "Find User Prompt" in Flows you do not have to republish a flow after updating a prompt. This also allows you to use dynamic prompts depending on entries in a data table. In my company for example there are different greetings, depending witch division is called. The different prompts are named in the data table. So "find user prompt" uses the promptname from the data table, finds the prompt, loads the newest version of the prompt - and thats it.

Best
Christoph

I agree, although it does break the Dependency viewers!

TBH, I don't understand why Genesys require Flows to be re-published when updating a Prompt. For me, it removes much of the value of having fully encapsulated and dereferenced prompts in the first place!

I'm sure they have their reasons....

I recommend the "find user prompt"-option in flows. It loads the newest version of the prompt, so you can change prompts without republishing the flow(s) every time.

Others have mentioned a possible solution, I guess the benefits of having a single flow are it is easier to make changes inside one flow rather than having to apply to multiple different flows. E.g. If you are using a hold message prompt in each queue and update it, you only have to republish one flow rather than each individual in-queue flow. 

But it has its drawbacks too. 

We had a third party company implement Genesys for us about a year ago. Nobody in our company had used Genesys before at that point so we were happy to follow any and all suggestions made by this implementation team. 

Like most call centers we have multiple queues that each have slightly different call flows. The way the implementation team handled this was by having a single in-queue flow that each queue shared. At the top of this flow is a switch statement that branches depending on the name of the queue. Although the implementation team left us with a couple of major bugs, we ironed those out and have been using this one in-queue flow ever since.

I've had to create a couple of new queues recently, and it dawned on me that it might be more simple to have a designated in-queue flow for each queue rather than having one in-queue flow that they all share. My question is this: What is gained by having one in-queue flow that has several branching paths as opposed to one flow for each queue? In my mind it's cleaner and makes more sense to have one in-queue flow for each queue, but I'm a little hesitant to make this change because the implementation team (who I assume are well-versed in this type of thing) chose to do it this other way. Is this just a personal preference issue or am I missing something?