cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
999
Views
0
Helpful
2
Replies

CCX Mark Transferred Call As Handled

James Hawkins
Level 8
Level 8

Hello,

I have a CCX 11.6(2) system which runs a script which presents callers with various IVR options which transfer calls to both internal and external destinations. If the caller does not selct an IVR option they are sent to a CSQ where their call is answered by an agent.

I am using the Call Redirect step to transfer calls and, under the Successful branch, I have a Set Contact Info step that the Handled attribute for the call.

This way of marking calls as handled seems a bit inconsistent - sometimes it works but sometimes the call is shown as abandoned.

In the Step Reference guide for the Set Contact Info step for 11.6 there are some options for the step which do not appear in the step when I open it in the editor. Below is the image from the guide.

https://developer.cisco.com/docs/contact-center-express/#!set-contact-info-step/set-contact-info-step

Capture.PNG

Above is what I see in my Step Editor using the 11.6(1.00) Editor.

Does anyone know why/when the additional options disappeared?

Also what is the best practice for the Busy, Invalid and Unsuccessful branches of the Call Redirect step? - I suspect that some of the calls are being flagged as abandoned because the Call Redirect destination does not answer (some are hunt groups) and I would like to be able to somehow record this for reporting purposes.

 

 

1 Accepted Solution

Accepted Solutions

Anthony Holloway
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee
Considering the screenshot is of Windows XP, I'd say that was a looong time ago, likely in the CRS 3 days, though I really don't know for sure.

As for marking as handled upon successful redirect, that is how you do it.

For the failed branches of the redirect step, it's really up to you, and I would say that there is no best practice here. I would certainly say there are bad practices, like infinitely retrying the call redirect step over and over and over again.

Perhaps just send them to the queue like the callers who do not select an option.

Interestingly, it looks like the person who took that screenshot used to answer questions on the forums:
https://community.cisco.com/t5/contact-center-discussions/uccx-outbound-campaigns-based-on-amount-of-contact-phones/m-p/3506494#M3216

As for your inconsistency comment, I have never had a redirect/handle operation be anything other than consistent, so I'd be curious if you truly are experiencing an issue here. You should run some controlled test, like 100 calls, and see how many fall out of line.

View solution in original post

2 Replies 2

Anthony Holloway
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee
Considering the screenshot is of Windows XP, I'd say that was a looong time ago, likely in the CRS 3 days, though I really don't know for sure.

As for marking as handled upon successful redirect, that is how you do it.

For the failed branches of the redirect step, it's really up to you, and I would say that there is no best practice here. I would certainly say there are bad practices, like infinitely retrying the call redirect step over and over and over again.

Perhaps just send them to the queue like the callers who do not select an option.

Interestingly, it looks like the person who took that screenshot used to answer questions on the forums:
https://community.cisco.com/t5/contact-center-discussions/uccx-outbound-campaigns-based-on-amount-of-contact-phones/m-p/3506494#M3216

As for your inconsistency comment, I have never had a redirect/handle operation be anything other than consistent, so I'd be curious if you truly are experiencing an issue here. You should run some controlled test, like 100 calls, and see how many fall out of line.

Anthony,

Thanks - some really good information there. I will update the script so that the other branches of the redirect step go to the operator queue as you suggested and see what effect that has on the stats.

Useful that you noted the screenshot from the docs was from XP - it does not give me much faith in the accuracy of the rest of the documentation!