Workforce Engagement Management

Hello all!

I'm hoping for some guidance or even details on your previous experiences.

In GC WFM, you add your Route Paths to your Planning Groups.  Your Planning Groups belong to Business Units.  When you view your Intraday Monitoring screen, you can filter on the Business Units and those Planning Groups for a particular day (including "today").  And you can export data from your Intraday Monitoring screen for your Business Units.

However, in GC, you can have matching Route Paths that belong to multiple Business Units.  When this happens, and you export the data from your Intraday Monitoring screen and attempt to "match up" the exports from your Queue and Skill Performance Views, it makes it impossible.  This will make it seems like your Intraday Monitoring data is "double counting".  Now, we know that isn't the case.  The Intraday Monitoring screens are fairly simple.  They only show "what WFM knows about", but if you have the same route paths in multiple BUs, and export that data, you're exporting the same/similar data for each BU (at least, the same/similar data where the Route Paths match within those BUs' Planning Groups).

My questions:

.   Why is it "allowed" to add the same route path to differing BUs?  Shouldn't the route paths across those BUs be "guaranteed to be unique"?
.   Is there a business case that I'm missing for this?  Would it not be better to ensure that all Route Paths in an org are "uniquie-ified"?  (<-- That's a VanceTerm.  But feel free to use it in your everyday lexicon. :-) )
.   What is the best way to "match up" the data in the Intraday Screens with the Queue and Skill Performance views?
.   I'd love to be able to filter the Queue Performance Views with the "None" skill.   Is that something on the roadmap to be able to do?  Right now, you have to use the Skills Performance View and look for the "None" skill.

Thank you!

#Workforce Management

------------------------------
Trent Vance
TTEC Digital, LLC fka Avtex Solutions, LLC
------------------------------

Being able to associate a route path to multiple business units allows someone to split shared load across BUs. The downside, as you have pointed out, is in actuals not knowing the splits.

Another downside is that the onus is on the forecaster to do big % modifications to offered every forecast to account for the splits. In hindsight, they should have been uniquely associated to a maximum of one business unit. We can't just switch to a unique requirement because it would break customers like in your example. It should not be a surprise they have associated a rout path to multiple BUs - the UI notes associates and even allows two filtering options at the bottom where one will exclude RPs associated with other BUs.

We could look at a higher-level config item that we would default for net new customers to false, "Allow route paths to be associated with multiple business units", with a link to an article describing the downsides.

------------------------------
Jay Langsford
VP, R&D
------------------------------

Jay - 

Apparently typing a post with crossed fingers does work!  I was hoping to get a reply from you on this one!  :-) 

This is exactly what I needed to hear.  I wasn't even thinking about splitting work across BUs; that is a very good point.  

The higher-level config item that would allow new clients and/or new route paths to be forced to be unique would be a great idea.  And on the Contact Center side, perhaps a filter that allows you to select a Planning Group and/or Route Path to filter the Queue Performance view would be a good add as well.

Thanks so much for the assist.  Spot on as usual! 

------------------------------
Trent Vance
TTEC Digital, LLC fka Avtex Solutions, LLC
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-04-2023 08:26
From: Jay Langsford
Subject: Same Route Paths in Multiple Business Units

Being able to associate a route path to multiple business units allows someone to split shared load across BUs. The downside, as you have pointed out, is in actuals not knowing the splits.

Another downside is that the onus is on the forecaster to do big % modifications to offered every forecast to account for the splits. In hindsight, they should have been uniquely associated to a maximum of one business unit. We can't just switch to a unique requirement because it would break customers like in your example. It should not be a surprise they have associated a rout path to multiple BUs - the UI notes associates and even allows two filtering options at the bottom where one will exclude RPs associated with other BUs.

We could look at a higher-level config item that we would default for net new customers to false, "Allow route paths to be associated with multiple business units", with a link to an article describing the downsides.

------------------------------
Jay Langsford
VP, R&D
------------------------------