Auto Attendant in BE3000 - why so limited?

[AdamBatey]

Hi,

We just received our first BE3000, and i'm perplexed as to why the auto attendant is so limited.  It's one really great feature availlable with CUE on the CUCME/UC5XX platform.  Why is there no support for the AA script files like we have in CUE??

Is there a solution to get Autoattendant & B-ACD (Queuing etc) for a BE3000 solution?

It seems on the whole the BE3000 is very simplisitc, which is great in terms of ease of use, but really limits deployment opitons.  I had thought this was to be a step up from the UC5XX/CUCMe platforms, but so far seems to be a step back.

Regards,

[Mark O'Connors]

I agree with you totally. I know they said that this box isn't going to have all the features of the UC500, but even the basic phone features are very limited. Cisco TAC isn't very helpful with this product either. It doesn't even support putting a directed call park on a button. I have found out that they are getting a lot of features out this fall. My understanding it that it will have most of the phone features of the UC500s. Just no router or VPN capabilities. Hopefully the update will make this box more appealing.

[AdamBatey]

I hope the next update does too.. i just can't fathom why (if this is CUCM & Unity Connection) why these features aren't already there; Unity connection has a fully funtional cutomisable AA (based on the doco), so why was it removed from the BE3000

Hopefully Cisco put these in as it's a real shame to not have them

[paolo bevilacqua]

I think the BE3000 concept is very simple marketing: show you a little bit of the real CUCM, but having so limited that one will need to upgrade to get the real thing. However, that will leave many customers disappointed and even not willing to adopt Cisco products anymore.

Personally for customers that want the most at for a lesser cost, I recommend ISR G2 routers with CME 9.0 and CUE.

[AdamBatey]

I've deployed quite a number of ISR based CUCME's, and would agree with your recomendations.

Our Cisco AM lead us to beleive that the BE3000 was the next step up, and even advised us that CUCME on the ISR will be phased out (with the BE3000) taking its place. The marketing for the product certainly gave us the feeling that this was the next big thing. Really disapointed with the reality.

Requesting a tech session with a Cisco Rep; so will hopefully get to ask them directly about some of the apparent shortfalls.

[sanjsinh]

Hi,

We understand that AA functionality is limited. We are planning to add more features to it. Just so that we are on the right path, what are some of the AA related features that you found lacking? Please respond also about some of other shortfalls.

Native Queuing will be supported as a beta feature in upcoming 8.6.4 release and as a full feature in 8.6.5 release.

Thanks

[AdamBatey]

Hi Sanjay,

Thanks for your reply, I want the same functionality i get from the CUE AA (using the CUCE Editor). This is an incredibly powerful aspect of CUE and adds huge amount of value to the product. Examples of what I use it for; multi-level menu's, pin entry & check (for access to priority support queues) multiple time of day/date checks.

Queuing is also something I often implement/get asked for ; support desks & basic call centers want queue functionality; eg music/promotional soundtrack while caller is in queue; intermittant hold message ("your call is important"), option to exit and leave queue and leave message, Overflow behaviour (ie if all agents busy move to overflow queue).

Some of these queue features i can't implement with the CUCME, I was hoping the BE3000 was the next step up and would have some of this.  Can you advise when 8.6.4 & 8.6.5 are expected for release?

Regards,

[jzhang92]

Adam,

   Thanks a lot for the feedback.

   We are also trying to achieve feature caprity with other products on AA.

   About the comments on queuing , option to exit the queue.  You mean a option to go to other extension, VM, or operator?

[AdamBatey]

Hi,

There are 2 aspects;

• queue max time exit; ie if the caller has not been answered after say 5mins in the queue they are diverted to an alternate detination (VM, another queue, and extensions, etc)
• queue exit option; The caller can press an option to be directed to a Voice mailbox/alternate destination. EG:while in the queue  a message gets played at regular intervals thats says "if you'd prefer to leave a message and have an agen t call you back, please press 5 now"

Hope this clarifies.

Regards,

[paolo bevilacqua]

 
Queuing is also something I often implement/get asked for ; support desks & basic call centers want queue functionality; eg music/promotional soundtrack while caller is in queue; intermittant hold message ("your call is important"), option to exit and leave queue and leave message, Overflow behaviour (ie if all agents busy move to overflow queue).
Some of these queue features i can't implement with the CUCME, I was hoping the BE3000 was the next step up and would have some of this.  Can you advise when 8.6.4 & 8.6.5 are expected for release?

Again chime in. To my knowledge, all and any the features you mentioned are available with CME's latest version of B-ACD/AA.

However keep in mind that the Cisco product for professional Call Centers is UCCX, and not the base telephony platform.

[AdamBatey]

Hi Paolo,

Agreed, the B-ACD does do this, I use it alot, i think my statement might have been poorly written, I meant it has some limitations; for example voice hunt groups are not fully supported with B-ACD, so if you need a parralel/blast hunt group you are limitied in your use of the B-ACD.   I was hoping the BE3000- being more SIP focused would have queing that support blast hunt groups.

I'm also aware of the UCCX platform, not talking about full contact center capabilities, just some basic call queuing.

[paolo bevilacqua]

Thanks for your further explaination. Now that we've totally hijacked the thread, let me add about parallel calls in CME, in case customer insists using them. I've found that the voice-hunt works poorly even without B-ACD, while an octo-line shared DN provides a good working solution, even whe called from B/ACD.

[AdamBatey]

Thanks Paolo, i think i'll go have a look into that!

Back on the original topic; I'm keen to know if the BE3000 is really going to be placed as a replacement for the ISR base CUCME; just saw a announcemnet for the retirement of the Cisco Express UC specilization, the replacement specialization does not have CUCME ISR listed, just BE3000 and UC3XX/UC5XX. This adds weight to the statement our Cisco AM made that the CUCME platform will be EOL'd sometime in the near future.

Announcement: Retirement of Cisco Express Unified Communications Specialization

Source: http://www.cisco.com/web/partners/partner_with_cisco/channel_partner_program/resale/specializations/unified_communications.html#~one,

[paolo bevilacqua]

As a partner, I've been notified of the retirement of that specialization too. However, I was also told that it will be replaced with "something appropriate" in the due time.

I know for sure that CME has been and still is an huge success for Cisco and I honestly doubt that Cisco will terminate it anytime. In fact, some features of the upcoming 9.x have already leaked (CKEM support for example).

I wish good luck to Cisco for the BE platform or anything else, but they should also keep in mind that in order to replace something that works good and does (almost) everything, they must have something that works better, and does more

[Michael Meyer]

I too am interested in where Cisco are trying to place this product. Questions in my mind are:

* With an interface far removed from CUCM and CME, is this a whole new call control platform?

* No BRI support and FXO only available via SPA gateway (Why not ISR gateways, again asks questions about this being a new call control platform)

* Why the complicated licensing mechanism and levels for the handset features and models? Very confusing

* The Hardware does not support HA (When you hit over 200+ handsets surley you would want this)

* The hardware does not use Cisco DSP (Texas Instruments instead)

* The hardware uses SATA, given requirements to be reliable I would have thought SAS would be more suitable with redundant power options?

* SIP only handsets, SCCP for me offers more overall endpoint functions (each to their own I guess)

* Why no native SIP trunk capability? Must use Border Elements (Which I generally don't mind doing on larger builds, but for simple tasks seems excessive)

* I too raise the overly simplistic AA and there seems to be no mention of IVR and DB support.

* Why does it not configure the same as CUCME or CUCM (Or simplified versions)

* Why no CLI for gurus

All these to me ask the question, why is it so expensive? and what markets are they chasing here?