ICD Enhanced - Skills based routing

[wesleyv]

Hi

I'm having trouble understanding something. You assign different skills to different agents and thereafter you assign competency levels for every Skill.

If there are 3 agents logged into a queue, and they have the same skill, but their competency levels vary, why does the call not necesarily go to the Agent with the most competent setting first (It seems like it allways selects the "Longest Available" Agent).

I need it to go to the most competent Agent, and if there are two agents with the same competency available, it should do the "Longest available" selection between these two agents.

Is somebody out there, please?

[kthorngr]

Looks like you are hitting this:

CSCdy81948 - ICD should support true competency level based routing of calls

Symptom: The current design of CRS 3.0 does not allow ICD to route calls based on the actual skill level of the agent. In other words, as long as a resource is part of a CSQ and his skill level matches the minimum required to service that CSQ, the call gets routed to an available resource based on the resource selection criterion specified on the CSQ config screen. This is misleading since it would be desired that the calls be routed based on the decreasing level of competency of the assigned skill after they hit a given CSQ.

Woraround: There are scripting workarounds that involve creating mutliple CSQ's for this and letting the calls fall through the script to get to agents based on their skill level. But this is tedious and with the max CSQ limitation can be one that cannot be accomplished in many cases.

My understanding is that this will be fixed in 3.1.

[wesleyv]

Thanks, Just as I thought.

I implemented the workaround excactly as you suggested, but now we are getting questions around the reporting side of things.

Every time we hop to a "more competent queue" we are getting de-queues showing up on the reports. Can something be done about this. (Or should we just wait for 3.1?

Thanks

Wesley

[adignan]

I ran into the same problem with reporting. The work around involving multiple CSQ's really hoses up the reporting. We will have to wait for 3.1 to fix it.