Genesys Cloud - UI New Features

(All operational processes mentioned here are cleared for public knowledge.)

Hello,

I want to directly address the recent changes to the PTO review and approval experience, as the current implementation has materially degraded an established operational workflow with little to no meaningful communication beforehand.

The release notes describe this update as adding filter and sort options. That characterization is inaccurate and misleading given the actual impact.

This was not a minor enhancement. It was a functional workflow change that removed an efficient review process and replaced it with a slower, more manual alternative.

At a minimum, this should have been communicated with:

• Clear behavioral descriptions
• Screenshots or workflow comparisons
• Advance notice to allow operational teams to prepare

Genesys has demonstrated the ability to do this effectively in other areas (see https://community.genesys.com/discussion/agent-workspace-evolution-stay-tuned-more-to-follow-bookmark-this-page). The lack of the same rigor here is inconsistent and difficult to justify.

Our previous workflow followed this general pattern:

• Approvals and reviews are completed as appropriate. When a request cannot be approved immediately, it is marked with "zReviewed" in the notes. PTO approvals extend up to one year.
• This allows all pending items to be reviewed in a single consolidated view.
• Screenshots are taken as needed to preserve order and review context.
• Navigation to individual days is done directly via arrows or calendar selection.
• Requests can then be approved or denied quickly across multiple dates.

This supported fast, continuous navigation and decision-making, which is critical in a WFM environment.

This process is no longer scalable in its current form.

• Forced into a date range selection model
• Even single-day reviews require manually defining a start and end date
• Navigation between days is no longer fluid

This introduces unnecessary friction into what should be a high-frequency, low-effort task. This is this an edge case; it is a core, repeated operational function.

Feedback across the team has been immediate and consistent:

• "This throws a wrench into how PTO processing works."
• "We relied on being able to move quickly between dates."
• "This feels like it was designed without user input."
• "It feels like people who don't understand call center operations are designing this."

While candid, this feedback reflects a consistent operational concern:

Design decisions are not being adequately validated against real-world usage.

To contextualize this issue, I analyzed broader sentiment around the Genesys Cloud platform.

• At a high level, the platform is praised for innovation, AI features, and scalability
• At an operational level, there are consistent complaints about:
• Regressions in usability
  • Clunky or inefficient workflows in WFM tools
  • Core functions becoming more manual instead of less

There is also consistent frustration with poor release communication and unannounced workflow changes, which force teams to adapt in real time in production environments.

More broadly, there is a perception that foundational workflow issues are deprioritized while new features are pushed forward.

This PTO change is a clear example of that disconnect.

The problem here is not simply "change."

The problem is:

• A working, efficient workflow was removed
• The replacement is objectively slower and more rigid
• The impact was not clearly communicated
• There is no visible indication of user feedback influencing the design

This creates avoidable operational inefficiency and erodes confidence in future updates.

Expectations Going Forward

If Genesys intends to continue evolving these tools, there are some baseline expectations:

1. Accurate Release Notes
   1. Clearly describe workflow changes-not just feature labels
   2. Include visuals for all UI or navigation updates
2. Operational Validation
   1. Test changes against real WFM workflows before release
   2. Engage actual end users, not just internal design assumptions
3. Do Not Regress Core Workflows
   1. Enhancements should not come at the cost of removing efficient processes
   2. If a workflow must change, provide an equal or better alternative

To support point #2, I am part of the Genesys Orchestrator program, which replaced the previous Genesys Advocacy program.

I would like to be engaged more consistently in focus groups and early design discussions for upcoming features.

I previously participated in a review of the Adherence Adjustments feature design in January 2025. That session was productive, and feedback appeared to be considered. However, there has been no follow-up or continued engagement since that time.

This highlights a broader gap between initial user input and sustained collaboration.

Genesys Cloud remains a powerful platform. However, changes like this reinforce a concern shared across the user base:

Improvements at the feature level are coming at the expense of usability at the operational level.

And, across our organization, there is another strong belief that continues to be reinforced:

Genesys Cloud is being developed as call center software by people who do not know how call centers operate.

While previous conversations with certain parts of the Genesys teams show that to not be the case, the products that are delivered continue to reinforce that narrative.

These tradeoffs are not sustainable for teams managing real-time contact center operations.

------------------------------
Gene Gutierrez | Workforce Analyst
Presbyterian Workforce Management
Albuquerque, NM
------------------------------

Attached is the sentiment analysis conducted.

------------------------------
Gene Gutierrez | Workforce Analyst
Presbyterian Workforce Management
Albuquerque, NM
------------------------------