I have implemented this solution for the 3rd time and now having issues again even to have it communicate with Communications Manager 8.0. In my experience, I would NOT recommend the CUBAC software to any client until the following criteria has been met or resolved.
1. Like any other UC product especially since it is a seperate physical server that is being enforced just for support for an application there should be a backup option built into to point to a network shared drive or SFTP. I do not understand why clients have to go through the trouble of copying certain folders and going through the registry and sql database to create a backup. Why did the client even purchase this server version?
2. Why is it a requirement that CUBAC/CUDAC or whichever version be installed only in a physical server for support? This application can be installed on VMware. It's not a big application such as CUCM or UCON? Now I'm stuck with not having more support just because of it.
3. The BLF status is ridiculously slow. There are a few seconds before the user searched in the Directory displays the current status. The point of the software is efficiently reflect the status of the called user whether on the call or not. The old attendant console reflected the Call Forward to Voice Mail why is that not included? I've had to open up a TAC case just for this, change the Service Parameters in CUCM 7.1.3 which by the way is not in the install guide, but another work around to fix such a required feature. And even after the CTI parameter has been changed we could barely tell the improvement of the BLF status. We scroll through the client and it shows quite a lag in displaying the BLF status.
4. The old Attendant Console allowed users to manipulate the menu and move it around as they needed. I don't agree with the locked down menus for users.
5. I have opened up quite a bit of TAC Request Services the first time I deployed on a live environment and still continue to do. One example is why did I have to go through the registry just to get consult transfer to user through the console working? This is a very basic feature that all operators and regular users use.
6. An application such as this should not require another server. It should just be a plugin as before that can be downloaded.
7. The queue option why is it that everybody can see it. There should be options to only have the members/operators of that queue or add options for members to be added to a specific queue so that Operators are not confused which calls are coming in.
8. The dial pad. Why is it so small and all the way in the button of the application? It is very hard for the users to see. The point of the application is to make easier to see or have better visibility and making it easier for users to type in the numbers they call besides the corporate users.
9. The point of the matter is I have a difficult time recommending a PURCHASED software that has limited features compared to the old Attendant Console. Everything else that was good in the old has been degraded to a less efficient and less customizable application.
10. Same goes for the scheduling as a global setting. Why should it be limited to a global setting? The scheduling should be allowed to be changed for all queues. Not all queues apply the same schedule. These are different departments most of the time.
11. Control shortcut keys. Why is it that there are no control or shortcut keys for the end call, transfer, conference and such? So now we have to right click at everything?
12. Speed dials. The old Speed Dials features not only were speed dials but also indicated the status of the user. Now the new CUBAC only shows a lighting symbol. To me this is another lack of feature. The point of speed dials is to have the most common people be monitored for status.
13. In the installation guides there is no reason to be using an End User for an application user account to integrate to CUCM. Why is this documented as such? I've had to ask clients over and over again that we have to create an end user account in AD and not have the password expire. End users should be user accounts not application accounts.
14. Licensing is such a complicated process. Why is it that there is a section in the registration where it asks the reseller or clients that are going to use it? Other clients should not see different clients listed that have ran this application. This is a privacy matter. Not to mention that you have to get the LAC code and then only be able to get the Registration code after we installed the application. 5 days for trial is way too short. It should follow the length of trial same us CUCM and other UC servers during demo mode.
15. Again I see NO reason to require a physical server for this just we can open up a TAC case.
16. Older users and especially once that migrate from analog to VoIP solutions really could careless to use an application to answer a call. I find that most of them do blind transfers regardless of the users state.
17. Another question that came up was since they are paying for a paid version why is there no reporting for calls with this application? It makes sense. This is not a cheap solution, why is reporting not included with this? Supervisors/Managers asked if they can monitor the queue to see if calls are really handled by the Operators. They can't if they don't have enough Operator license. They understand this is not UCCX, but it is a legitimate question. They should still be able to see at least the queue status. They don't expect to control the calls like CAD for UCCX but at least have realtime reports. That is the purpose of the queue in CUBAC I would hope.
18. The client pop up behavior. The users should have the option to change when the menu pops up. It should not be limited to just popping up every time. Clients that send pages through the webpage or use databases to access information have to deal with the CUBAC client console popping up and rushing to put the menu down to see what they are doing. This is really unacceptable.
There are other minor benefits to this application but the many issues I've encountered as explained above makes it an undesirable UC solution especially for the price that clients pay.
Best Regards,
Maybelyn H. Plecic
