Patent Grant
7916858
The present invention relates generally to organized telecommunications systems and more particularly to a system and method for distributing communications among multiple possible destinations based on sensitivity to agent training status.
The Call Center
A “call center” is an organization of people, telecommunications equipment and management software, with a mission of efficiently handling electronic customer contact. A typical call center must balance competing goals. Customers should experience high quality and consistent service as measured, for example, by how long the customer's call must wait in queue before being answered and receiving satisfactory service. At the same time, this service should be provided to make efficient use of call center resources.
Strategies for Call Center Management
“Workforce management” systems provide important tools for meeting the goals of the call center. These systems generate forecasts of call volumes and call handling times based on historical data, to predict how much staff will be needed at different times of the day and week. The systems then create schedules that match the staffing to anticipated needs.
Typically, an Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) function is provided in conjunction with a computerized Private Branch Exchange (PBX). This ACD function enables a group of agents, termed ACD agents, to handle a high volume of inbound calls and simultaneously allows a queued caller to listen to recordings when waiting for an available ACD agent. The ACD function typically informs inbound callers of their status while they wait and the ACD function routes callers to an appropriate ACD agent on a first-come-first-served basis.
Today, all full-featured PBXs provide the ACD function and there are even vendors who provide switches specifically designed to support the ACD function. The ACD function has been expanded to provide statistical reporting tools, in addition to the call queuing and call routing functions mentioned above, which statistical reporting tools are used to manage the call center. For example, ACD historical reports enable a manager to identify times: (a) when inbound callers abandon calls after long waits in a queue because, for example, the call center is staffed by too few ACD agents and (b) when many ACD agents are idle. In addition, ACD forecasting reports, based on the historical reports, allow the manager to determine appropriate staffing levels for specific weeks and months in the future.
Queue Management
ACD systems experience high traffic periods and low traffic periods. Consequently, ACD systems must be capable of automating two major decisions. The first major decision may be referred to as the “agent selection decision,” i.e., when more than one agent is available to handle the next transaction, which agent should be chosen? The second major decision may be referred to as the “transaction selection decision,” i.e., when more than one transaction is waiting for the next available agent and an agent becomes available, which transaction should the agent handle?
One approach to the agent selection decision is to set up a sequencing scheme, so that the switch of the ACD system follows the same sequence of agents until the first available agent in the sequence is found. The concern with this approach is that it creates “hot seats,” i.e. an inequitable distribution of inbound calls to ACD agents who are high in the sequence. Most current ACD systems solve the agent selection decision by using a longest-idle-eligible-agent approach to provide a more equitable distribution of transactions.
There are also different approaches to the transaction selection decision in which there are more available transactions than there are ACD agents. One approach is to create one or more first-in, first-out (FIFO) queues. Under this approach, each transaction may be marked with a priority level by the switch of the ACD system. When an agent becomes available, the transaction with the highest priority is routed to the agent. If several calls of equal priority are waiting in a queue, the call which has been waiting the longest is routed to the available agent. If the call center conducts outbound transactions, each transaction is similarly submitted to a FIFO queue with a priority designation, with the switch routing transactions from the queue to the agents.
Queue/Team Management
Calls that arrive at a call center generally are classified into “call types” based on the dialed number and possibly other information such as calling number or caller responses to prompts from the network. The call center is typically served by an automatic call distributor (ACD), which identifies the call type of each incoming call and either delivers or queues it. Each call type may have a separate first-in-first-out queue in the ACD. In most existing call centers, the agents answering calls are organized into one or more “teams,” with each team having primary responsibility of the calls in one or more queues. This paradigm is sometimes referred to as “queue/team.”
In the queue/team model, scheduling for each team can be done independently. Suppose, for example, that the call center handles calls for sales, service, and billing, and that each of these call types is served by a separate team. The schedule for sales agents will depend on the forecast for sales call volume and on various constraints and preferences applicable to the agents being scheduled, but this schedule is not affected by the call volume forecast for service or billing. Further, within the sales team, agents are typically considered interchangeable from a call handling viewpoint. Thus, within a team, schedule start times, break times and the like, may be traded freely among agents in the team to satisfy agent preferences without affecting scheduled call coverage. See, U.S. Pat. No. 5,325,292, expressly incorporated herein by reference.
In a queue/team environment, when a new call arrived, the ACD determines the call type and places it in the queue, if all agents are busy, or allocates this call to the team member who had been available the longest.
Skill-Based Routing
The longest-idle-agent approach and the FIFO approach function well in applications having little variation in the types of transactions being handled by the ACD agents. If all agents can handle any transaction, these approaches provide a sufficiently high level of transactional throughput, i.e., the number of transactions handled by the call center in a particular time interval. However, in many call center environments, the agents are not equally adept at performing all types of transactions. For example, some transactions of a particular call center may require knowledge of a language other than the native language of the country in which the call center is located. As another example, some transactions may require the expertise of “specialists” having training in the specific field to which the transaction relates, since training all agents to be knowledgeable in all areas would be cost-prohibitive. For ACD applications in which agents are not equally adept at performing all transactions, there are a number of problems which at least potentially reduce transactional throughput of the call center. Three such problems may be referred to as the “under-skilled agent” problem, the “over-skilled agent” problem, and the “static grouping” problem.
The under-skilled agent problem reduces transactional throughput when the switch routes transactions to ACD agents who do not have sufficient skills to handle the transactions. For example, a call may be routed to an English-only speaking person, even though the caller only speaks Spanish. In another example, the transaction may relate to product support of a particular item for which the agent is not trained. When this occurs, the agent will typically apologize to the customer and transfer the call to another agent who is capable of helping the customer. Consequently, neither the agent's nor the customer's time is efficiently utilized.
Inefficient utilization is also a concern related to the over-skilled agent problem. A call center may have fixed groupings of agents, with each group having highly trained individuals and less-experienced individuals. Call-management may also designate certain agents as “specialists,” since it would be cost prohibitive to train all agents to be experts in all transactions. Ideally, the highly skilled agents handle only those transactions that require a greater-than-average skill level. However, if a significant time passes without transactions that require highly skilled agents, the agents may be assigned to calls for which they are over-qualified. This places the system in a position in which there is no qualified agent for an incoming call requiring a particular expertise because the agents having the expertise are handling calls that do not require such expertise. Again, the transactional throughput of the call center is reduced.
Current ACD systems allow agents to be grouped according to training. For example, a product support call center may be divided into four fixed, i.e., “static,” groups, with each group being trained in a different category of products sold by the company. There are a number of potentially negative effects of static grouping. Firstly, the call center management must devise some configuration of agents into groups. This may be a costly process requiring extensive analysis and data entry. Secondly, the configuration that is devised is not likely to be optimal in all situations. The pace and mix of transactions will change during a typical day. At different times, the adverse effects of the under-skilled agent problem and the adverse effects of the over-skilled agent problem will vary with respect to the transactional throughput of the call center. Thirdly, when a new product is released, the devised configuration likely will be less valuable. In response to changes in the size, pace and mix of the transaction load over the course of time, call management must monitor and adjust the performance of the current grouping configuration on an ongoing basis. When trends are detected, the grouping configuration should be changed. This requires the time and attention of call center managers and supervisors. Again, the transactional throughput is reduced.
It is thus known in the prior art to provide ACD systems that depart from the queue/team model described above. Calls are still categorized into call types. In place of queues for the call types, however, queues associated with “skills” are provided. The ACD's call distribution logic for the call type determines which queue or queues a call will occupy at various times before it is answered. Agents are not organized into teams with exclusive responsibility for specific queues. Instead, each agent has one or more identified “skills” corresponding to the skills-based queues. Thus, both a given call and a given agent may be connected to multiple queues at the same time. Agent skills designations may be further qualified, for example, as “primary” or “secondary” skills, or with some other designation of skill priority or degree of skill attainment. The ACD call distribution logic may take the skill priority levels into account in its call distribution logic.
In a skills-based routing environment, the “matching” of calls to agents by the ACD becomes more sophisticated and thus complicated. Agents who have more than one skill no longer “belong” to a well-defined team that handles a restricted set of calls. Instead, the skills definitions form “implicit” teams that overlap in complex ways. If, for example, a call center has 10 skills defined, then agents could in principle have any of 1024 possible combinations (210) of those skills. Each skill combination could be eligible to handle a different subset of the incoming calls, and the eligible subset might vary with time of day, number of calls in queue, or other factors used by the ACD in its call routing decisions.
Today, call center managers want to connect a caller to an ACD agent having exactly the right skills to serve the caller. However, “skills based” ACD agent groups are often small and, as a result, whenever an inbound call arrives, all such “skills based” ACD agents may be busy. In such instances, the ACD function can take call back instructions from the caller and the ACD function can manage the call back functions, for example, by assigning such calls, in accordance with the caller instructions, to a “skills based” ACD agent whenever one becomes available.
Scheduling of agents in a skills-based environment is thus a much more difficult problem than it is in a queue/team environment. In a skills-based environment, call types cannot be considered in isolation. Thus, for example, a heavy volume of Service calls might place higher demands on multi-skilled agents, causing an unforeseen shortage of coverage for Billing calls. Further, agents with different skills cannot be considered interchangeable for call handling. Thus, trading lunch times between a Sales-only agent and a multi-skill agent might lead to over-staffing Sales at noon while under-staffing Service at 1:00 p.m. This would lead to undesirable results. Moreover, with respect to the needs of a particular call type, a multi-skilled agent might provide no help over a given span of time, might be 100% available for calls of that type, or might be available part of the time and handling other call types for another part of time.
All agents having a particular combination of skills may be deemed a “skill group.” A central problem of skills-based scheduling is then finding a way to predict what fraction of scheduled agents from each skill group will be available to each call type during each time interval being scheduled. If these fractions are known, then the effect of different agent schedules can be generated. Unfortunately, it is difficult or impossible to calculate the skill group availability fractions directly. These functions depend on the relative and absolute call volumes in each call type, on the particulars of the skills-based call distribution algorithms in the ACD, and on the skills profiles of the total scheduled agent population. Particularly as ACD skills-based routing algorithms themselves evolve and become more sophisticated, the factors affecting skill group availability become too complex for direct analysis. One proposed solution provides a feedback mechanism involving call handling simulation and incremental scheduling, to schedule agents in a skills-based routing environment. See, U.S. Pat. No. 6,044,355, expressly incorporated herein in its entirety.
In accordance with this “skills-based scheduling” method, a computer implemented tool is used to determine an optimum schedule for a plurality of scheduled agents in a telephone call center, each of the plurality of scheduled agents having a combination of defined skills. The plurality of scheduled agents are organized into “skill groups” with each group including all scheduled agents having a particular combination of skills. The method begins by generating a plurality of net staffing arrays, each net staff array associated with a given call type and defining, for each time interval to be scheduled, an estimate of a difference between a given staffing level and a staffing level needed to meet a current call handling requirement. In addition to the net staffing arrays, the method uses a plurality of skills group availability arrays, each skills group availability array associated with the given call type and defining, for each combination of skill group and time interval to be scheduled, an estimate of a percentage of scheduled agents from each skill group that are available to handle a call. According to the method, the plurality of arrays are used to generate a proposed schedule for each of the plurality of scheduled agents. Thereafter, a call handling simulation is then run against the proposed schedule using a plurality of ACD call distribution algorithms (one for each call type being scheduled). Based on the results of the call handling simulation, the net staffing arrays and the skills availability arrays are refined to more accurately define the net staffing and skills usage requirements. The process of generating a schedule and then testing that schedule through the simulator is then repeated until a given event occurs. The given event may be a determination that the schedule meets some given acceptance criteria, a passage of a predetermined period of time, a predetermined number of iterations of the process, or some combination thereof. A proposed schedule is “optimized” when it provides an acceptable call handling performance level and an acceptable staffing level in the simulation. Once the proposed schedule is “optimized,” it may be further adjusted (within a particular skill group) to accommodate agent preferences.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,206,903 to Kohler et al. describes ACD equipment which uses static grouping. Each static group of agents is referred to as a “split,” and each split is associated with a different queue. The agents are assigned to splits according to skills. Within a single split, the agents may be limited to knowledge of different subtypes of transactions. Preferably, there is at least one agent in each split who is trained to handle calls of any of the subtypes within the particular split. This “expert” may also be trained to efficiently handle calls of other types, i.e., other splits. Each agent possesses up to four skill numbers that represent various abilities of the agent with respect to handling transactions related to subtypes and types of transactions. The ACD equipment assigns each incoming call three prioritized skill numbers that estimate skill requirements of the incoming call. The skill numbers of the incoming call are considered “prioritized,” since they are viewed sequentially in searching for a match of the call with an agent, so that the second skill number of the call is unnecessary if a match is found using the first prioritized skill number. The incoming call is assigned the one, two or three prioritized skill numbers and is placed in the appropriate queue of the appropriate static group of agents. A search is made among the available agents for an agent-skill number that matches the first skill number of the call. If no match is found after a predetermined time delay, the second prioritized skill number of the call is used to find a match. If no match is found after a second predetermined time delay, the third prioritized skill number is considered. Then, if no match is still found, the ACD equipment of Kohler et al. expands the search of available agents to other groups of agents.
While the Kohler et al. patent does not directly address the problems associated with static groups, it does consider the skills of the individual agents. The prioritized skill numbers assigned to the incoming calls are logically ordered. The patent refers to the first skill number of a call as the primary call-skill indicator. This primary indicator is used to define the minimal skill level that is required for an agent to competently handle the call. Consequently, if a match is made with the primary indicator, the ACD agent may not be over-skilled or under-skilled. However, if the search is unsuccessful, the secondary call-skill indicator is utilized. The search for a match to the secondary indicator may cause the call to be routed to an agent having more than the minimal required skill. The third prioritized skill number that is assigned to the incoming call is referred to as the “tertiary” call-skill indicator. The tertiary indicator is yet another skill level beyond what is minimally required to competently handle a call. Since the tertiary indicator is utilized only if a match is not found for either of the primary or secondary indicators, an overly skilled agent of the appropriate group will handle the call only if that agent is the only available capable agent. Thus, more highly skilled agents are assigned only when their skills are required, or no lesser-skilled agent is available to handle the call.
Group Routing
Various types of conventional automatic distributors (ACDs) are available to distribute incoming calls to a group. Reservation and information services may be provided by large companies, such as major airlines, and may consist of geographically separated groups of agents that answer incoming calls distributed to the agents by separate ACDs. Agent communication terminals (ACTs) which are connected to an ACD are utilized by the agents to process incoming calls routed to a particular ACT by the ACD.
A public branch exchange (PBX) type ACD such as a Definity® ACD available from AT&T functions as a conventional PBX and further functions as an ACD to distribute incoming calls to local agents connected to the PBX. Another type of ACD consists of the utilization of an electronic telecommunication switch such as a 5ESS® switch available from AT&T which is capable of providing ACD service when supposed by ACTs coupled to the switch. Both types of ACD typically function as independent systems which handle incoming calls and make internal decisions concerning which agent will receive a given call. Both types of ACD systems are capable of generating statistical reports which can be monitored by a workstation coupled to the ACD system to allow a supervisor to monitor call handling statistics. Such data typically represents an average of statistics for a given system.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,737,983 to Frauenthal et al. addresses a method of balancing traffic loads to a plurality of customer ACDs. Each ACD periodically transmits call congestion data representing an accumulation of data for the ACD to a central database. Based on this data, the database determines a preferred ACD to which to route an incoming call. Although this technique may be generally sufficient for balancing certain traffic loads, it relies on accumulated or aggregate data on which to base decisions and, hence does not permit specific agents, i.e. ACTs, to be identified to receive a call.
In U.S. Pat. No. 4,953,204 to Cuschleg, Jr. et al., a method is described for queuing calls to a multi-location service provider having a plurality of ACDs. Decisions on routing a call to the ACD is based on the availability of a non-busy voice channel to the ACD. If all channels (circuits) are busy, a call is queued until an ACD becomes available to take the call as determined by a non-busy circuit to the respective ACD. However, the number of agents associated with a given ACD does not necessarily equal the number of circuits provided to the ACD. Thus, the monitoring of available circuits as the basis for queue management and the routing of calls does not correspond to actual agent availability.
Telephone call centers that handle calls to toll-free “800” numbers are well-known in the art. Typically, a company may have many call centers, all answering calls made to the same set of 800 numbers. Each of the company's call centers usually has an automatic call distributor (ACD) or similar equipment capable of queuing calls. ACD management information systems keep statistics on agent and call status, and can report these statistics on frequent intervals. Such capabilities are in use today for centralized reporting and display of multi-location call center status.
In such systems, the company will want to distribute the calls to its call centers in a way that will optimally meet its business goals. Those goals might include low cost of call handling, answering most calls within a given amount of time, providing customized handling for certain calls, and many others. It is also known in the prior art that certain call routing criteria and techniques support a broad range of business goals. These include “load balancing,” “caller segmentation” and “geographic routing.” Load balancing refers to distribution of calls so that the expected answer delay for new calls is similar across all the call centers. If other considerations do not dictate otherwise, load balancing is desirable because it provides optimum efficiency in the use of agents and facilities, and it provides the most consistent grade of service to callers. In special situations it might be desirable to unbalance the load in a particular way, but control over the distribution of call load is still desired.
If the caller's identity can be inferred from the calling number, caller-entered digits, or other information, that identity may influence the choice of destination for the call. Call routing based on such information is referred to as caller segmentation. Also, it has been found desirable for particular call centers to handle calls from particular geographic areas. The motivation may be to minimize call transport costs, to support pre-defined call center “territories”, or to take advantage of agents specifically trained to handle calls from given locations. Such techniques are known as geographic routing.
The interexchange carriers who provide 800 service today generally support some form of “routing plan” to help achieve load balancing, caller segmentation and geographic routing. Typically these routing plans allow 800 call routing based on time of day, day of week, the caller's area code, caller-entered digits, and fixed percentage allocations. Predominately, however, the routing plans supported by the carriers are static in the sense that they do not automatically react to unexpected variations in incoming call volume or distribution, nor to actual call delays being experienced at each destination. Reaction to changing conditions is done via manual modification of the plan, on a time scale of minutes or hours.
Recent service offerings from some interexchange carriers offer some degree of automatic reaction to changing conditions. One such offering, called “alternate termination sequence” or “ATS” (from AT&T), allows customers to establish maximum numbers of calls to be queued for each destination, with a pre-defined alternative when a primary destination is overloaded. Another offering, referred to as “intelligent routing control” or “IRC” (from MCI), allows an ACD to refuse a call from the network, again resulting in pre-defined alternative call handling. A third kind of service, AT&T's Intelligent Call Processing, lets the interexchange network pass call-by-call data to a computer.
In a conventional ACD, phone calls are processed on a first-in, first-out basis: the longest call waiting is answered by the next available agent. Answering calls across multiple automated call distributors (ACD) is typically done on a first-in, first-out basis dependent upon time of receipt of the call by each ACD, whether the call is directly connected or forwarded.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,893,301 is an example of use of a multiple line interface modules with remote line interface connectivity to a PCM bus. Specifically, it discloses use of a portion of an ACD at a remote location from a call center which are connected together via a T-1 connection to perform centralized call processing. This is an example of a single ACD with remote input and processing rather than a network of multiple ACDs forming a virtual call center. In the invention described in this patent, it is possible to process calls at the single ACD on a first-in first-out basis.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,048,452 discloses an ACD where the time in queue for each call is measured and compared against upper and lower time thresholds. When time in queue exceeds an upper threshold, the call is re-directed, provided that the measured time in alternative queue for the oldest call is less than the threshold.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,737,983 discloses an ACD with a database with a pointer maintained to the next entry in a table to be initially selected in response to a next call routing query. Tests may be performed to determine if call should actually be routed to the selected ACD.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,757,529 discloses an ACD creating a separate queue for each call type, detecting when a terminal becomes available, and distributing waiting calls from different queues to servers in accordance with defined priority values.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,073,890 discloses an automatic call distributor for providing ACD service from remote ACD agents.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,278,898 discloses a system for managing a hold queue.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,309,513 discloses a telephone system comprising a plurality of automatic call distributors for receiving and distributing calls in a sequential order.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,369,695 discloses a facility for redirecting a call from one destination point to another, in which event a new timer value could be same as or different from prior timer value.
Another call distribution scheme is provided in Gechter et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,036,535. This patent discloses a system for automatically distributing telephone calls placed over a network to one of a plurality of agent stations connected to the network via service interfaces, and providing status messages to the network. Gechter et al.'s disclosed system includes means for receiving the agent status messages and call arrival messages from the network, which means are connected via a network service interface to the network. Routing means responsive to the receiving means is provided for generating a routing signal provided to the network to connect the incoming call to an agent station through the network. In the system disclosed in Gechter et al, when an incoming call is made to the call router, it decides which agent station should receive the call, establishes a call with that agent station, and then transfers the original call onto the second call to connect the incoming caller directly to the agent station and then drops out of the connection. (See, Gechter et al., column 11, lines 45-51).
U.S. Pat. No. 5,193,110 issued to Jones et al discloses an integrated services platform for a telephone communications system which platform includes a plurality of application processing ports for providing different types of information services to callers. In Jones et al's disclosed system, a master control unit and a high speed digital switch are used to control processing of incoming phone calls by recognizing the type of service requested by the caller and then routing the call to the appropriate processing port. The Jones et al system is disclosed as an adjunct to current switching technology in public and private networks.
Intelligent Call Management
Call centers are also used to make outbound calls, for example for telemarketing. Agents making outbound calls, referred to as outbound agents, are typically separate from ACD agents handling inbound calls and call center software separately manages outbound call lists for outbound agents to ensure that each outbound agent wastes little time in dialing or in performing overhead operations.
A call center typically has multiple agents for answering incoming calls and placing outgoing calls. A call center may also have agents participating in outgoing call campaigns, typically in conjunction with an outbound call management system. Each agent may be assigned to a particular group, such as an inbound group or an outbound group. Agents can also be assigned to a supervisor team, which represents multiple agents that report to the same supervisor.
In certain situations, it is necessary to restrict an agent's activity to answering calls or handling a particular type of call (e.g., answering only incoming calls). For example, during an outbound campaign, the system placing the outbound calls and controlling the rate at which the calls are placed, e.g., a so-called predictive dialer, relies on the availability of the agent to handle an answered call. If the system places outbound calls expecting the agent to be available, but the agent instead places their own call to another agent or a supervisor, or has an incoming call connected to them, the outbound system may not have an agent available to handle an answered outbound call. Additionally, if an agent is assigned to handle incoming calls, but instead places a call to another agent or listens to voice mail messages, the number of queued incoming calls may increase, thereby increasing the waiting time experienced by the callers.
In existing call centers, agents can be manually switched from one group to another (e.g., from an inbound group to an outbound group). This switching may be performed by a supervisor using a terminal or other device coupled to the call center. In other systems, a supervisor may instruct particular agents to switch from inbound call processing to outbound call processing, or vice versa.
One document which provides considerable information on intelligent networks is “ITU-T Recommendation Q.1219, Intelligent Network User's Guide for Capability Set 1”, dated April, 1994. This document is incorporated herein by reference.
One known system proposes a call-management method and system for distributing calls to a plurality of individuals, such as automatic call distribution (ACD) agents, which routes calls to the individuals based upon a correlation of attributes of the individuals with calls that are tagged with identification of abilities that are advantageous to efficiently processing the calls. That is, for each call that is to be distributed, one or more skills that are relevant to efficient handling of the call are determined and then used to route the call to an appropriate individual. In addition, call management preferences may also be accommodated.
It is therefore apparent that the prior art has given a good deal of attention to the optimization of call center operations, including inbound automatic call directors, outbound predictive dialers, combined operations, agent scheduling, and call routing.
In general, the known optimization methods seek to minimize the immediate cost function for call center operation. Thus, factors relevant to a present cost of operations (“cost” being given a broad interpretation) are analyzed and an algorithm applied for minimization.
The present invention seeks to apply new methods of optimization for call routing. Thus, the present invention seeks to optimize long term call center operations, rather than immediate efficiency per se. Thus, at various times, the systems performs functions which are different or even opposite the result expected to achieve highest short term efficiency. Preferably, however, during peak demand periods, the system assures high short term efficiency by switching or adapting mode of operation.
Therefore, according to the present invention, a number of additional factors are applicable, or the same factors analyzed in different ways, beyond those employed in existing optimizations. Since most call centers are operational for extended periods of time, by analyzing and optimizing significant cost factors beyond those contemplated by the prior art, a more global optimization may be achieved.
One critical long term cost factor in call center operations is agent training. While this is directly apparent for “help desks”, where the agents must be skilled in technical issues, it is also true in sales and service. Sales agents must be trained to close sales efficiently, with high customer satisfaction. This requires that the agent understand the customer's actual needs, price sensitivity, discretionary needs, and the available product or service to be sold. Training can assist agents in taking an order quickly, while avoiding incomplete transactions and non-purchase directed inquiries on a sales call.
In a service environment, the goal is to satisfy the customer at lowest cost to the company. Often, this comes through making a reasonable offer of compromise quickly, which requires understanding the issues raised by the customer. Delay leads to two costs; the agent's time, and the possibility of increased demands by the customer.
In technical support operations, the agent must understand the technical issues of the product or service. The agent must also understand the psychology of the user, who may be frustrated, angry, apologetic, or even lonely. The agent must often remotely diagnose the problem, or understand the information provided by the caller, and communicate a solution or resolution.
In each case, the caller characteristics and issues will often have a significant effect on the duration of the call. While, in general, more skilled agents will have a higher productivity, in some cases, the caller restricts throughput. Therefore, even though the agent is capable of completing the call quickly, the caller may cause inordinate delays. According to the present invention, through a number of methods, the caller characteristics are determined or predicted, and an appropriate agent selected based on the anticipated dynamic of the call. Thus, for example, if the anticipated call duration for a successful outcome, based on the caller characteristics is a minimum of 5 minutes (depending on the agent), then an agent who is likely to complete the call in about five minutes may be selected as the optimum; agents who would be able to complete the call within 4 minutes, while technically more productive, may have little impact on the actual call duration, and thus would be inefficiently employed. Likewise, an agent anticipated to complete the call in 6 minutes might be deemed inefficient, depending on the availability of other agents and additional criteria. The call may be selected as a training exercise. In this case, an agent is selected for training whom would be expected to operate with a certain degree of inefficiency to complete the call. In some cases, unsupervised training is instituted. In other cases, a training agent (or automated system) is allowed to shadow the call, providing assistance, instruction and/or monitoring of the trainee agent during the call. In this case, it would be anticipated that the call duration would be greater than 5 minutes, due to the training nature of the call. Further, the required trainer assistance further reduces immediate efficiency. However, as the agents in the pool become more skilled, long term efficiency increases.
More highly skilled agents are both worth more and generally command higher compensation. A program which trains agents internally is either required, due to lack of specific external training programs, or is cost effective, since new hires can be compensated at a lower rate than trained and experienced hires. Thus, for long-term operations, there is an incentive to train agents internally, rather than seeking to hire trained agents.
Agents may receive additional compensation for training activities, either for their training activities, performance based compensation based on the improvement of their trainees, or both. Thus, there is an incentive for agents to become skilled and to assist in the training. As a result, the average skill level and uniformity in a call center will increase. However, since the optimal skill palette within a call center typically is a moving target, the training process will never cease.
Often, live interaction is an important component of training. Therefore, a significant component of the training encompasses interaction with callers in real-world situations. Training often involves presenting agents with new challenges and experiences in order to assure breadth of exposure.
According to prior skill-based routing schemes, an agent skill level is considered a static upper limit on capabilities, and the ACD avoids distributing calls to agents below a threshold. Agents may be called upon to serve requests within their acknowledged skill set. On the other hand, according to the present invention, each call is considered a potential training exercise, in order to expand the capabilities of the agent. Therefore, to the extent that the nature of the call can be determined in advance, the incentive according to this scheme is to route the call to an agent who is barely capable of handling the call, and to avoid routing only to the best available agents. This strategy has other implications. Because agents are challenged continually, there is reduced incentive for an agent to limit his skills to avoid the “tougher” assignments. Further, a self-monitoring scheme may be implemented to determine the status of an agent's skill with each call. For example, agent performance is typically determined on a call-throughput basis, since call centers are managed on a man-hour requirement basis and agents compensated on a per-hour basis. Therefore, based on a presumed agent skill set and an estimation of the skills required for a given call, a call duration may be predicted. The actual duration is then compared with the predicted duration, providing a performance metric for the agent.
This scheme also allows determination of the pertinent factors for call duration, both based on the information about the call or caller and the skill set of the agent.
It is noted that, during peak demand periods, reduced productivity due to training is preferably minimized. Thus, as demand increases, high skill set agents are preferably reassigned from training to active status, while lower skill set agents are assigned to calls well within their capabilities. Thus, during such peak demand periods, the staffing requirement will be no worse than traditional call centers. On the other hand, since training is integrated with operations, over a period of time, the average skill of all agents will increase. Thus, more skilled agents will be available at peak periods, reducing overall staffing requirements over a long term.
It is noted that, while preferred embodiments of the invention involve the training of human agents, the invention is not so limited. The agents, which may be considered resources, may be automated devices which are capable or learning or training, e.g., so-called artificial agents, or even animals or other biological or hybrid systems. The state of the resource is preferably measured, predicted or modeled, to provide a skill set, skill profile, or aptitude rating. In some instances, e.g., where there is sufficient capacity in the system to permit short-term inefficiencies, a training mode or protocol is instituted, wherein the trainable resources are presented with training challenges. In this way, the resources are improved. On the other hand, when the available capacity is limited or deemed insufficient, a high-efficiency mode or protocol is adopted, to fill a short term demand on the system. Generally, a resource selected for efficient operation will differ from a resource for training operation, though this is not necessarily the case: an agent capable of training to perform a task generally has minimally sufficient skills for handling the task, albeit at lower efficiency than a trained resource. Likewise, even in the case of automated systems, it is sometimes undesirable to simply “clone” or copy a resource; rather, the internal logic and efficiency of such resources may differ; the trainer resource, for example, may have limited skills, be computationally inefficient, slow, require additional resources, or have high cost. (The trainer resource for an artificial agent may be, for example, a human.)
However, another reason for avoiding simply proliferating existing resources is that training errors in the trainer resources will propagate, without significant opportunity for remediation. Thus, for example, if the trainer resource is an artificial neural network, trained with real world example, erroneous data or artifacts will be propagated. On the other hand, training new resources without copying existing resources permits greater variety, and thus an ability to obtain new strategic paradigms. In some cases, resources (trainer or training) may be used in parallel, and a result selected by voting or selection of result through other known means. The parallel tasking will, of course, according to the present invention be reduced or eliminated when load handling requirements exceed available capabilities for such redundant (or partially redundant) activities.
In accordance with the present invention, an ACD function utilizes an Automatic Call Sharing (ACS) algorithm to enable inbound and outbound call functions to be performed by one ACD agent. Advantageously, in accordance with the present invention, ACD agent idle time is used to make outbound calls, while maintaining a desired level of service on inbound calls. As will be described in detail below, embodiments of the present invention accomplish the desired function by utilizing the ACS algorithm to determine when an ACD agent assignment to work on outbound calls will be given priority over the agent's waiting to work on inbound calls. Therefore, by combining inbound and outbound call handling, assuming that the skill sets for both tasks correspond, or that agents are capable of both, it is possible to staff a call center with sufficient headroom to allow non-emergent operational status most of the time.
Instead of maintaining skill disparities, the present invention seeks to minimize skill disparities between agents, making skill-based routing of calls within a center easier. Known call centers present issues due to small groups of agents having a requisite skill. On the other hand, as the proportion of agents with each skill increases, the ease of finding an agent with the right mix of skills is increased.
The present invention also provides a central database for skill set management, allowing a geographically dispersed call center or freelance agents to be called upon dynamically as required. Thus, if a peak demand period is much shorter than an agent shift, off-site freelance agents may be dynamically called upon, for example through the Internet, ISDN, POTS, DSL, Cable modem, or a VPN, to handle calls. In this case, the training of such off-site or freelance agents will generally differ from those who are in-house agents. For example, if freelance agents are called upon only during peak demand periods, these agents will be trained specifically for the skills in short supply during such periods.
In order to gage the skill set required of an agent for a call, a number of methods may be employed. Callers may use automated call directors (ACDs) to instruct the system as to the nature of the call. Using a menu or hierarchal menu, a series of questions may be asked of callers in the queue to determine the identity of the caller and the nature of the call. Likewise, ANI/DNIS information, IP address or the like, or other communications channel identifier may be employed to identify the calling telephone communications channel. This, in turn, may be used to call a database record associated with the identity of the caller or communications channel.
In many instances, call centers are implemented to provide support for computer systems. It is known to provide a message automatically generated by a computer to identify the identity and status of the computer at a given time, and possibly the nature of a computer problem. The present invention allows this message to be associated with a direct semantic communication session with the user, for example to predefine the nature of the call and possibly the skill set required to address the issues presented. This information can also be used to trigger a call-back after the information is analyzed and an appropriate agent is available.
Often, a highly skilled agent will serve as mentor for the trainee, and “shadow” the call. Thus, the routing of a call may depend on availability of both trainee and skilled instructor.
Another aspect of call center efficiency impacted by this scheme is agent motivation. Because an agent with lower skill levels will be given assignments considered challenging, while more skilled agents given training assignments which may be considered desirable, there is an incentive for agents to progress, and likewise no incentive to avoid progressing. Thus, an agent will have no incentive to intentionally or subliminally perform poorly to avoid future difficult skill-based assignments.
In operation, the system works as follows. Prior to call setup, an estimation is made of the nature of the call and the prospective issues to be encountered. This is performed in standard manner, for example in an inbound call based on the number dialed, ANI/DNIS of the caller (with possible database past history lookup), selections made through automated menus, voice messages, or other triage techniques. In the case of outbound calls, a database of past history, demographic information (both particular to the callee and for the region of the call), and nature of the call may all be used to determine the projected agent skill set required for the call.
It is noted that, after initial call setup, the actual skill set required may become apparent, and the call may be rerouted to another agent.
Once the predicted skill sets are determined, these are then compared against a database of available agents and their respective skill sets. A weighting is applied based on perceived importance of selection criteria, and the requirements correlated with the available agent skill sets. When the call center is operating below peak capacity, marginally acceptable agents are selected to receive the call, possibly with a highly acceptable agent available if necessary or to monitor the call. When the call center is operating new peak capacity, the agents are assigned to minimize the anticipated man-hour burden (throughput) and/or wait time. Thus, peak throughput operation generally requires that agents operate within their proven skill sets, and that training be minimized. However, even during such peak periods, there may be significant training opportunities that should not be missed.
Each call is associated with a skill expression that identifies the skills that are relevant to efficient handling of the call. As previously noted, the preferred embodiment is one in which more than one relevant skill is identified, so that all of the factors that determine a “best” agent for handling a call can be considered. The relevant skills may be determined using different techniques. Automatic number identification (ANI) may be used to ascertain information regarding the calling party, while dialed number identification service (DNIS) may be used for information regarding the called party. Additional information may be gathered by means of interactive voice response (IVR) input and database lookups. For example, customer database retrieval allows call-management to determine a customer history and customer preferences.
The skill expression of a call includes the required skills and skill levels for efficiently handling the call. In one embodiment, the skills may be divided into two categories: mandatory and optional skills. Mandatory skills are those skills that an agent must possess in order to handle the call, even if the call remains in queue for an extended period of time. For example, language proficiency. Optional skills are those that are considered in the selection of the appropriate agent, but not critical.
It is noted that the peak/non-peak considerations may be applied on a call-by-call basis. Thus, certain callers may be privileged to have a shorter anticipated wait and greater efficiency service than others. Thus, these callers may be treated preferentially, without altering the essential aspects of the invention.
The present invention may also generate a set of reports directed to management of the call center. The quality of service reports are generated to indicate the effectiveness of the call-management method and system. An agent summary report is organized according to the activities of particular individuals, i.e. agents. A skill summary report organizes the data by skill expressions, rather than by agents. This report may list the number of calls requiring selected skill expressions and the average time spent on those calls. Other known report types are also possible. An important report type is the improvement in call center efficiency over time, i.e., decreased wait time, increased throughput, increased customer satisfaction, etc. Thus, each agent should demonstrate improved skills over time. Peak throughput should meet or exceed reasonable expectations based on a statically skill-routed call center. Other metrics may also be evaluated.
It is noted that the method according to the present invention provides a new optimization scheme method for automated call distribution. Therefore, the optimization scheme may generally be substituted for existing optimization schemes in such automated call distributors.
In addition, the present invention also suggests a new method of scheduling agents for work shifts. Rather than populating a set of required skill levels to fulfill anticipated needs, the work shift schedule includes complementary scheduling of trainers and trainees, both on a work shift level and shift rotation level.
It is therefore an object of the invention to provide a method of selecting a call handling agent handle a call, comprising the steps of identifying at least one characteristic of a call to be handled; determining whether the call center load is high; if the call center load is not high, selecting a first call handling agent having at least marginally sufficient skills to handle the call having the at least one characteristic, the call handling agent having a skill set determined to be deficient with respect to the characteristic, while also selecting a second call handling agent capable of training other agents with respect to the at least one characteristic to train the first call handling agent; and if the call center load is high, selecting a third call handling agent having at least marginally sufficient skills to handle the call having the at least one characteristic, the call handling agent having a skill set determined to be sufficient with respect to the characteristic.
It is also an object of the invention to provide a method of selecting an agent to handle a call, comprising the steps of, in response to availability of a call having a set of identified characteristics, selecting one of a plurality of agents who has a worst sufficient characteristic score for the individual call type to handle the call, including identifying a set of characteristics of the call, retrieving an agent profile, comprising a set of metrics corresponding to the set of identified characteristics, and selecting one of the available call handlers who has an agent profile which indicates that the agent is likely capable of handling the call, but requires training with respect to calls having the set of identified characteristics.
It is a further object of the invention to provide a method for determining an efficient schedule for a plurality of agents in a call center, balancing call center efficiency and agent training opportunity, each of the plurality of agents having a skill profile, comprising the steps of predicting an aggregate set of characteristics for received calls during a contiguous period of time; selecting a set of agents having a bimodal distribution of skills, a first mode representing agents having a skill set deficient with respect to the set of characteristics and a second mode representing agents having a skill set permitting them to train the agents represented by the first mode with respect to the characteristics; and scheduling the selected set of agents for the contiguous period of time and pairing agents corresponding to the first mode with agents corresponding to the second mode for a call of the set of characteristics.
Another object of the invention provides a method for determining an efficient schedule for a plurality of agents in a call center, balancing call center efficiency and agent training opportunity, each of the plurality of agents having a skill profile, comprising the steps of predicting an aggregate set of characteristics for received calls during a shift schedule; selecting a set of agents having a bimodal distribution of skills, a first mode representing agents having a skill set deficient with respect to the set of characteristics and a second mode representing agents having a skill set permitting them to train the agents represented by the first mode with respect to the characteristics; and scheduling the selected set of agents for the shift schedule and pairing agents corresponding to the first mode with agents corresponding to the second mode for a call of the set of characteristics.
A further object of the invention provides a method optimizing an association of a communication with an agent in a communications center, comprising the steps of determining a characteristic of a communication; retrieving a skill profile of a set of agents; and matching the communication with an agent based on the respective skill profile, the cost utility of the match being optimized with respect to long term operation of the communication center, including training costs and anticipated future improvements in agent skills based on training opportunities.
An object of the invention also includes providing a method for matching a communication with a communication handler, comprising the steps of predicting a set of issues to be handled during the communication; retrieving a profile record for each of a plurality of communications handlers; analyzing the profile records with respect to the anticipated issues of the communication to determine a minimal capability, training requirement, and a training capability with respect to the anticipated issues; selecting a first communication handler having a minimal capability to handle the anticipated issues, a training requirement with respect to the anticipated issues; and selecting a second communication handler having a training capability with respect to the anticipated issues to train the first communication handler.
A further object of the invention provides a method of improving a skill set of an agent, comprising the steps of determining a skill profile of each of a set of agents agent; determining a set of characteristics of a communication, the characteristics and the skill profile having correlated features; determining an anticipated surplus of agents for communication volume; selecting an available agent having a skill profile anticipated to be sufficient to handle the communication, said skill profile being indicative of a lower level of skill with respect to at least one of the set of characteristics than another available agent; and establishing channel for the communication with the selected available agent and employing the communication as a training exercise. Advantageously, the selected agent may not be penalized based on performance during the training exercise. The skill profile may be updated after the training exercise to represent a higher level of skill with respect to the characteristics of the communication, and/or based on a utility of a communication. The selecting may be based on an optimization of the utility and cost of the communication, the agent training resulting from the training exercise being a component of the utility. The communication routing may also be optimized based on a cost-utility function, said cost-utility function comprising a valuation of immediate costs and utilities and a valuation of persistent agent training costs and utilities.
It is also an object of the invention to provide a method of allocating a resource to handle a task, comprising the steps of: determining a task-handling load; identifying a characteristic of a task to be handled; in dependence on said determined task-handling load, selecting a handling protocol selected from the group consisting of: selecting a first trainable resource predicted to have deficient skills relating to the task based on the identified characteristic, while also selecting a second resource capable of assisting in training the first trainable resource with respect to the characteristic; and selecting a third resource predicted to have sufficient skills relating to the task based on the identified characteristic, wherein according to a selected protocol, a trainable resource is trained with respect to the at least one characteristic, or a sufficiently skilled resource handles the task. Preferably, the third resource has skills which are optimum for handling the task. Typically, a plurality of tasks are simultaneously handled, and a selected third resource has optimum skills with respect to the available resources and the identified characteristics of the tasks to be handled. Preferably, the system is provided for training humans, i.e., the trainable resource comprises a human. For example, the environment may be a communications or call center, where human communications handling agents are trained to have skills predicted to be required by incoming or outgoing communications requirements. The selecting step comprises, for example, retrieving a resource profile, comprising a set of metrics corresponding to the set of identified characteristics. The protocol selection may be based on a threshold task-handling load for a group of resources. The skill or imputer skill of a resource may be updated after selection thereof and/or successful completion of an assigned task, and/or based on a performance during task handling.
According to another object of the invention, each resource has skills which are classified as a multidimensional vector, and wherein the identified task to be handled has a characteristic represented as a predicted multidimensional vector of required skills of a handling resource, wherein a selected first resource and second resource together have a composite multidimensional skill vector which substantially corresponds to the predicted multidimensional vector of required skills.
According to a further object of the invention, the second resource has a training skill for remediating a skill deficiency with respect to the identified characteristic, such that after handling the task, the first resource skills are improved.
Another object of the invention provides a plurality of available trainable first resources, wherein a particular first resource is selected based on which particular trainable first resource is predicted to have a maximum value gain in skills as a result of selection. Likewise, a plurality of second resources may be available, wherein a particular second resource is selected based on which particular second resource is predicted to be able to impart a maximum value gain in skills as a result of selection. Further, a plurality of first and second resources may be available, wherein a particular set of first and second resources are selected based on which set of first and second resources is predicted to have an optimum gain in skills for the first resource and lowest overall cost, as a result of selection of the set.
According to another object of the invention, a group of resources having sufficient skills for handling the task are aggregated, with a first resource having a worst skill set for handling the task selected from the group.
A further object of the invention optimized long-term cost utility. For example, resources are selected based on an optimum long-term cost utility of such selection, including training costs and anticipated future improvements in resource skills based on training opportunities.
Another object of the invention provides a method wherein the identification step comprises anticipating issues to be raised in handling the task, the selecting step comprising analyzing profile records of resources with respect to the anticipated issues to determine a minimum capability requirement, training requirement of a first resource, and a training capability of a second resource with respect to the anticipated issues, selecting a first resource having a skill exceeding the minimum capability requirement to handle the anticipated issues and having a training requirement with respect to the anticipated issues, and selecting a second resource having a training capability with respect to the anticipated issues, whereby a selected first and second resource have sufficient skills to handle the anticipated task, while the second resource assists the first resource in improving task handling capabilities.
It is a further object of the invention to provide a method for determining an efficient schedule for a plurality of agents in a call center, balancing call center efficiency and agent training opportunity, each of the plurality of agents having a skill profile, comprising the steps of predicting an aggregate set of characteristics for received calls during a contiguous period of time; selecting a set of agents having a target aggregate distribution of skills, including training agents having a skill set deficient with respect to the set of characteristics and trainer agents having a skill set permitting them to train the training agents with respect to the characteristics; scheduling the training agents and trainer agents for the contiguous period of time; and pairing training and trainer agents corresponding for a call.
The foregoing has outlined some of the more pertinent objects of the present invention. These objects should be construed to be merely illustrative of some of the more prominent features and applications of the invention. Many other beneficial results can be attained by applying the disclosed invention in a different manner or modifying the invention as will be described. Accordingly, other objects and a fuller understanding of the invention may be had by referring to the following Detailed Description of the preferred embodiment.
For a more complete understanding of the present invention and the advantages thereof, reference should be made to the following Detailed Description taken in connection with the accompanying drawings in which:
Similar reference characters refer to similar parts or steps throughout the several views of the drawings.
The following detailed description sets forth numerous specific details to provide a thorough understanding of the invention. However, those of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the invention may be practiced without these specific details. In other instances, well-known methods, procedures, protocols, components, and circuits have not been described in detail so as not to obscure the invention.
The present invention describes an improved method for distributing telephone calls or With reference to
In general terms, ACD agents use the agent telephones 30, 32, 34 and 36 to receive and/or place telephone calls between a call center that employs the agents and the customer telephones 18-24. For example, a customer may use a home telephone 20 to place a telephone call to the company to order one of the company's products. The customer dials a general sales telephone number of the company. The public switch 26 routes the inbound telephone call to the PBX 14. The PBX then routes all inbound calls that are directed to the general sales telephone number to the ACD system 10 for rerouting to one of the individuals at the agent telephones. The adjunct router 16 selects the appropriate agent telephone in a manner to be described below.
The adjunct router 16 is an dynamically adaptive optimizing system that controls the ACD switching circuitry 12 to route inbound calls to selected agents at the telephones 30-36. The selected agent receives the inbound call and processes the transaction.
The adjunct router is carried out in a combination of computer hardware and software. The adjunct router may be physically implemented in a stand-alone computer that interfaces with the PBX 14, or may be physically attached to the PBX. In the preferred embodiment, the router is a separate component in order to facilitate installation and maintenance of the adjunct router, and to provide the ability to readily interface with computer data networks and to support standards-based computer software. However, the inventive method may be carried out within an implementation in which the router is not an adjunct component, but is instead installed within the conventional components of a PBX and ACD system.
It is also noted that the entire telephony system may be a so-called Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) system, allowing the PBX to be implemented in one or more stand alone computers, communicating over computer networks which support Internet Protocol, optionally with quality of service guarantees.
Referring now to
The adjunct router 16 may be used to control inbound or outbound calls or a combination of inbound and outbound calls. For example, if an outbound call is to be routed to a particular customer, the request will be received at the transaction requester 48 via the call control interface 46. Inbound or outbound calls are queued at the transaction queue 56. The transaction dispatcher 52 is used in the selection of a particular ACD agent for handling a queued call. The transaction dispatcher 52 may also select another agent to monitor the call in order to provide assistance and training to the selected agent.
As will be explained more fully below, the selection is determined based on a long term optimization algorithm, which balances call needs, agents skills, system preferences, and/or agent training.
The skills inventory database 54 stores a profile for each of the agents (and trainers, who may or may not also be agents) who utilize the agent telephones 30-36. The queue controller 50 coordinates operations involving transaction requests and transaction dispatches. When a queued call has been matched with a particular agent, the transaction dispatcher 52 causes the call control interface 46 to issue a command to the switching circuitry 12 of the PBX to route the queued call to the appropriate agent telephone corresponding to the selected agent. The transaction dispatcher also causes the queue controller 50 to delete the corresponding entry in the transaction queue 56. In other words, when a call is routed to an agent, it is removed from the list of call identifications waiting agent assignment.
For each ACD agent, a profile is created based on manual inputs, such as language proficiency, formal education and training, position, and the like, as well as automatically, based on actual performance metrics and analysis, and stored at the skills inventory database 54. A profile thus represents a synopsis of the skills and characteristics that an agent possesses, although it may not exist in a human readable or human comprehensible form.
Preferably, the profile includes a number of vectors representing different attributes, which are preferably independent, but need not be. The profile relates to both the level of ability, i.e. expertise, in each skill vector, as well as the performance of the agent, which may be a distinct criterion, with respect to that skill. In other words, an agent may be quite knowledgeable with respect to a product line, but nevertheless relatively slow to service callers. The profile, or an adjunct database file, may also include a level of preference that call management has for the agent to handle transactions that require particular skills versus transactions that require other skills, or other extrinsic considerations.
During the identity confirmation process, the caller is also directed to provide certain details relating to the purpose of the call. For example, the maybe directed to “press one for sales, two for service, three for technical support, four for returns, and five for other”. Each selected choice, for example, could include a further menu, or an interactive voice response, or an option to record information. The information is then coded as a call characteristic vector 304. In some instances, a human operator will analyze the information, or directly interact with the caller to determine the nature of the call. Thus, a number of methods are available and may be employed to determine a significant amount of information about the caller and the nature of the call. Some of these techniques are well known in the art, while others are not generally employed, but the techniques are clearly available to those skilled in the art.
Each agent has a skill profile vector. This vector is developed based on various efficiency or productivity criteria. For example, in a sales position, productivity may be defined as sales volume or gross profits per call or per call minute, customer loyalty of past customers, or other appropriate metrics. In a service call, efficiency may be defined in terms of minutes per call, customer loyalty after the call, customer satisfaction during the call, successful resolution of the problem, or other metrics. These metrics may be absolute values, or normalized for the agent population, or both. The skill profile vector is stored in a database, and the profiles, which may be updated dynamically, of available or soon to be available agents, are retrieved from the database 305.
The optimization entails various information, which may include the caller characteristics, the call incident characterization, the agent profile(s), and/or various routing principles.
Under some circumstances, it is desired to implement a traditional skill-based call routing. For example, if peak instantaneous efficiency is desired, for example when the call center is near capacity 306, more advanced optimizations may be bypassed and a traditional skill based call routing algorithm 307 implemented, which optimizes a short term cost-utility function of the call center 308. An agent who can “optimally” handle the call is then selected 309, and the call routed to that agent 310.
Thus, in order to immediately optimize the call routing, the general principle is to route the call such that the sum of the utility functions of the calls be maximized while the cost of handling those calls be minimized. This optimization is generally known. However, this routing is not sensitive to the requirement to train agent, a continuing problem for call centers, which must constantly train agents.
According to a particular aspect of the invention, the various routing principles discussed above explicitly value training as a utility of handling a call 311, and thus a long-term optimization is implemented 312. The utility of caller satisfaction is also weighted, and thus the agent selected is generally minimally capable of handling the call. Thus, while the caller may be somewhat burdened by assignment to a trainee agent, the call center utility is maximized over the long term, and call center agents will generally increase in skill rapidly.
As for the cost side of the optimization, the cost of running a call center generally is dependent on required shift staffing, since other costs are generally constant. Accordingly, the training algorithm serves to minimize sub-locally optimal call routing during peak load periods, and thus would be expected to have no worse cost performance than traditional call centers. However, as the call center load is reduced, the call routing algorithm routes calls to trainee agents with respect to the call characteristics. This poses two costs. First, since the trainee is less skilled than a fully trained agent, the utility of the call will be reduced. Second, call center agent training generally requires a trainer be available to monitor and coach the trainee. While the trainer may be an active call center agent, and therefore part of the fixed overhead, there will be a marginal cost since the trainer agent might be assuming other responsibilities instead of training For example, agents not consumed with inbound call handling may engage in outbound call campaigns.
Thus, an optimization is performed, using as at least one factor the value of training an agent with respect to that call 312, and an appropriate trainee agent selected 313.
In order to provide proper training, the trainer and trainee must both be available, and the call routed to both 314. Generally, the trainee has primary responsibility for the call, and the trainer has no direct communication with the caller. Therefore, the trainer may join the call after commencement, or leave before closing. However, routing a call which requires two agents to be simultaneously available poses some difficulties. In general, the trainer is an agent capable of handling the entire call alone, while the trainee may not be. Therefore, the trainer is a more important participant, and the initial principle in routing the training call is to ensure that a trainer is available. The trainer may then await availability of an appropriate trainee, or if none is imminently available, handle the call himself or herself.
On the other hand, where a specific training campaign is in place, and a high utility associated with agent training, then the availability of a specific trainee or class of trainees for a call having defined characteristics is particularly important. In that case, when an appropriate trainee is available, the call held in that agent's cue, and the call possibly commenced, awaiting a training agent's availability.
If the training is highly structured, it is also possible to assign the trainer and trainee agents in pairs, so that the two are always available for calls together.
The same techniques are available for outbound campaigns and/or mixed call centers. In this case, the cost of training is more pronounced, since agents idle for inbound tasks are generally assigned to outbound tasks, and thus the allocation of trainer agents and trainee agents generally results in both longer call duration and double the number of agents assigned per call. This cost may again be balanced by avoiding training during peak utility outbound calling hours and peak inbound calling hours; however, training opportunities should not be avoided absolutely.
As shown in
Thus, it is seen that in the method described with respect to
In an outbound call campaign, the anticipated call characteristics may be relatively uniform; that is, there may be few known unique characteristics of a call, since these campaigns often target a homogenous audience. However, after the call is commenced, there is often a survey or other interaction which allows certain characteristics to be identified. In that case, the call may be maintained by the agent; transferred to another agent; if the agent is an appropriate trainee for the call, then an appropriate training agent obtained to shadow the call to provide assistance and training to the primary agent; or the agent may be an appropriate training agent for the call, and a trainee agent selected to shadow the call or substitute for the trainer.
From the above description and drawings, it will be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that the particular embodiments shown and described are for purposes of illustration only and are not intended to limit the scope of the invention. Those of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that the invention may be embodied in other specific forms without departing from its spirit or essential characteristics. References to details of particular embodiments are not intended to limit the scope of the claims.
It should be appreciated by those skilled in the art that the specific embodiments disclosed above may be readily utilized as a basis for modifying or designing other structures for carrying out the same purposes of the present invention. It should also be realized by those skilled in the art that such equivalent constructions do not depart from the spirit and scope of the invention as set forth in the appended claims.
The following references are considered pertinent to the present invention, and each is expressly incorporated herein by reference in its entirety:
The present application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/180,763, filed Jun. 25, 2002, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,110,525 issued Sep. 19, 2006, which is a non-provisional application of 60/300,684, filed Jun. 25, 2001, each of which is expressly incorporated herein by reference.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4048452 | Oehring et al. | Sep 1977 | A |
| 4286118 | Mehaffey et al. | Aug 1981 | A |
| 4677663 | Szlam | Jun 1987 | A |
| 4737983 | Frauenthal et al. | Apr 1988 | A |
| 4757529 | Glapa et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
| 4768221 | Green et al. | Aug 1988 | A |
| 4797911 | Szlam et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
| 4807279 | McClure et al. | Feb 1989 | A |
| 4852149 | Zwick et al. | Jul 1989 | A |
| 4866754 | Hashimoto | Sep 1989 | A |
| 4878243 | Hashimoto | Oct 1989 | A |
| 4893301 | Andrews et al. | Jan 1990 | A |
| 4894857 | Szlam et al. | Jan 1990 | A |
| 4924501 | Cheeseman et al. | May 1990 | A |
| 4930150 | Katz | May 1990 | A |
| 4933964 | Girgis | Jun 1990 | A |
| 4935956 | Hellwarth et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
| 4941168 | Kelly | Jul 1990 | A |
| 4953204 | Cuschleg et al. | Aug 1990 | A |
| 4958371 | Damoci et al. | Sep 1990 | A |
| 4975841 | Kehnemuyi et al. | Dec 1990 | A |
| 4977595 | Ohta et al. | Dec 1990 | A |
| 4979171 | Ashley | Dec 1990 | A |
| 4987587 | Jolissaint | Jan 1991 | A |
| 4998272 | Hawkins et al. | Mar 1991 | A |
| 5007000 | Baldi | Apr 1991 | A |
| 5007078 | Masson et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
| 5014298 | Katz | May 1991 | A |
| 5016270 | Katz | May 1991 | A |
| 5020095 | Morganstein et al. | May 1991 | A |
| 5020097 | Tanaka et al. | May 1991 | A |
| 5036535 | Gechter et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
| 5040208 | Jolissaint | Aug 1991 | A |
| 5048075 | Katz | Sep 1991 | A |
| 5063522 | Winters | Nov 1991 | A |
| 5070525 | Szlam et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
| 5070526 | Richmond et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
| 5073890 | Danielsen | Dec 1991 | A |
| 5073929 | Katz | Dec 1991 | A |
| 5077789 | Clark et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
| 5081711 | Rickman | Jan 1992 | A |
| 5097528 | Gursahaney et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
| 5103449 | Jolissaint | Apr 1992 | A |
| 5121422 | Kudo | Jun 1992 | A |
| 5128984 | Katz | Jul 1992 | A |
| 5161181 | Zwick | Nov 1992 | A |
| 5163083 | Dowden et al. | Nov 1992 | A |
| 5163087 | Kaplan | Nov 1992 | A |
| 5164981 | Mitchell et al. | Nov 1992 | A |
| 5166974 | Morganstein et al. | Nov 1992 | A |
| 5168517 | Waldman | Dec 1992 | A |
| 5185786 | Zwick | Feb 1993 | A |
| 5193110 | Jones et al. | Mar 1993 | A |
| 5206903 | Kohler et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
| 5214688 | Szlam et al. | May 1993 | A |
| 5218635 | Bonvallet et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
| 5224153 | Katz | Jun 1993 | A |
| 5237159 | Stephens et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
| 5239574 | Brandman et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
| 5251252 | Katz | Oct 1993 | A |
| 5253289 | Tanaka | Oct 1993 | A |
| 5276732 | Stent et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
| 5278898 | Cambray et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
| 5283818 | Klausner et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
| 5289530 | Reese | Feb 1994 | A |
| 5297146 | Ogawa | Mar 1994 | A |
| 5297195 | Thorne et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
| 5309504 | Morganstein | May 1994 | A |
| 5309505 | Szlam et al. | May 1994 | A |
| 5309513 | Rose | May 1994 | A |
| 5311574 | Livanos | May 1994 | A |
| 5311577 | Madrid et al. | May 1994 | A |
| 5313516 | Afshar et al. | May 1994 | A |
| 5319703 | Drory et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
| 5321745 | Drory et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
| 5325292 | Crockett | Jun 1994 | A |
| 5327490 | Cave | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5329579 | Brunson | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5333190 | Eyster | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5341412 | Ramot et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
| 5341414 | Popke | Aug 1994 | A |
| 5351285 | Katz | Sep 1994 | A |
| 5359645 | Katz | Oct 1994 | A |
| 5365575 | Katz | Nov 1994 | A |
| 5369695 | Chakravarti et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
| 5381470 | Cambray et al. | Jan 1995 | A |
| 5390236 | Klausner et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
| 5392353 | Morales | Feb 1995 | A |
| 5400393 | Knuth et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
| 5402474 | Miller et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
| 5420852 | Anderson et al. | May 1995 | A |
| 5420919 | Arnaud et al. | May 1995 | A |
| 5425093 | Trefzger | Jun 1995 | A |
| 5430792 | Jesurum et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
| 5432835 | Hashimoto | Jul 1995 | A |
| 5434906 | Robinson et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
| 5436967 | Hanson | Jul 1995 | A |
| 5442693 | Hays et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5448624 | Hardy et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
| 5448631 | Cain | Sep 1995 | A |
| 5459781 | Kaplan et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
| 5465286 | Clare et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
| 5467391 | Donaghue et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
| 5479487 | Hammond | Dec 1995 | A |
| 5479501 | Lai | Dec 1995 | A |
| 5481596 | Comerford | Jan 1996 | A |
| 5485506 | Recht et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
| 5493690 | Shimazaki | Feb 1996 | A |
| 5495523 | Stent et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
| 5495528 | Dunn et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
| 5502762 | Andrew et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
| 5506898 | Costantini et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
| 5511112 | Szlam | Apr 1996 | A |
| 5511117 | Zazzera | Apr 1996 | A |
| 5511121 | Yacobi | Apr 1996 | A |
| 5515421 | Sikand et al. | May 1996 | A |
| 5517566 | Smith et al. | May 1996 | A |
| 5519773 | Dumas et al. | May 1996 | A |
| 5524140 | Klausner et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
| 5524147 | Bean | Jun 1996 | A |
| 5526417 | Dezonno | Jun 1996 | A |
| 5528666 | Weigand et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
| 5530931 | Cook-Hellberg et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
| 5533103 | Peavey et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
| 5533107 | Irwin et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
| 5533109 | Baker | Jul 1996 | A |
| 5535257 | Goldberg et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
| 5537470 | Lee | Jul 1996 | A |
| 5544220 | Trefzger | Aug 1996 | A |
| 5544232 | Baker et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
| 5546452 | Andrews et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
| 5546456 | Vilsoet et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
| 5555290 | McLeod et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
| 5555295 | Bhusri | Sep 1996 | A |
| 5557668 | Brady | Sep 1996 | A |
| 5559867 | Langsenkamp et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
| 5559878 | Keys et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
| 5560011 | Uyama | Sep 1996 | A |
| 5561711 | Muller | Oct 1996 | A |
| 5568540 | Greco et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
| 5570419 | Cave et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
| 5572576 | Klausner et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
| 5572586 | Ouchi | Nov 1996 | A |
| 5574784 | LaPadula et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
| 5577112 | Cambray et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
| 5579377 | Rogers | Nov 1996 | A |
| 5579383 | Bales et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
| 5581602 | Szlam et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
| 5581604 | Robinson et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
| 5581607 | Richardson et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
| 5586179 | Stent et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
| 5588049 | Detering et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
| 5590171 | Howe et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
| 5590188 | Crockett | Dec 1996 | A |
| 5592543 | Smith et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
| 5594790 | Curreri et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
| 5594791 | Szlam et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
| 5600710 | Weisser et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
| 5610774 | Hayashi et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
| 5610978 | Purits | Mar 1997 | A |
| 5619557 | VanBerkum | Apr 1997 | A |
| 5621201 | Langhans et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
| 5623547 | Jones et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
| 5625676 | Greco et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
| 5625682 | Gray et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
| 5633917 | Rogers | May 1997 | A |
| 5633922 | August et al. | May 1997 | A |
| 5633924 | Kaish et al. | May 1997 | A |
| 5636267 | Utsumi et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
| 5636268 | Dijkstra et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
| 5638436 | Hamilton et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
| 5646986 | Sahni et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
| 5646988 | Hikawa | Jul 1997 | A |
| 5652788 | Hara | Jul 1997 | A |
| 5655013 | Gainsboro | Aug 1997 | A |
| 5655014 | Walsh et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
| 5657074 | Ishibe et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
| 5661283 | Gallacher et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
| 5666416 | Micali | Sep 1997 | A |
| 5675637 | Szlam et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5677955 | Doggett et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5679940 | Templeton et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5684863 | Katz | Nov 1997 | A |
| 5687225 | Jorgensen | Nov 1997 | A |
| 5692033 | Farris | Nov 1997 | A |
| 5692034 | Richardson et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
| 5696809 | Voit | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5696818 | Doremus et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5696908 | Muehlberger et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5699418 | Jones | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5701295 | Bales et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5703935 | Raissyan et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5715307 | Zazzera | Feb 1998 | A |
| 5717741 | Yue et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
| 5717757 | Micali | Feb 1998 | A |
| RE35758 | Winter et al. | Mar 1998 | E |
| 5724418 | Brady | Mar 1998 | A |
| 5727154 | Fry et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
| 5729600 | Blaha et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
| 5740233 | Cave et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
| 5740240 | Jolissaint | Apr 1998 | A |
| 5742675 | Kilander et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
| 5748711 | Scherer | May 1998 | A |
| 5754939 | Herz et al. | May 1998 | A |
| 5761285 | Stent | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5768355 | Salibrici et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5768360 | Reynolds et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5768385 | Simon | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5774357 | Hoffberg et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5774537 | Kim | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5787156 | Katz | Jul 1998 | A |
| 5787159 | Hamilton et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
| 5790935 | Payton | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5793846 | Katz | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5793868 | Micali | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5796791 | Polcyn | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5796816 | Utsumi | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5799077 | Yoshii | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5799087 | Rosen | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5806071 | Balderrama et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5812642 | Leroy | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5812668 | Weber | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5815551 | Katz | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5815554 | Burgess et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5815566 | Ramot et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5815657 | Williams et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5822400 | Smith | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5822401 | Cave et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5822410 | McCausland et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5825869 | Brooks et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5828731 | Szlam et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5828734 | Katz | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5828840 | Cowan et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5832089 | Kravitz et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5835572 | Richardson et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5835896 | Fisher et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5838772 | Wilson et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5838779 | Fuller et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5839119 | Krsul et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5841852 | He | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5848143 | Andrews et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5850428 | Day | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5850446 | Berger et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5854832 | Dezonno | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5857013 | Yue et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5857023 | Demers et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5867386 | Hoffberg et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5867559 | Jorgensen et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5867564 | Bhusri | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5867572 | MacDonald et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5867799 | Lang et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5870464 | Brewster et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5872833 | Scherer | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5875108 | Hoffberg et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5878126 | Velamuri et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5878130 | Andrews et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5884277 | Khosla | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5889862 | Ohta et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5889863 | Weber | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5890138 | Godin et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5893902 | Transue et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5894505 | Koyama | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5896446 | Sagady et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5898154 | Rosen | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5898759 | Huang | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5898762 | Katz | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5901209 | Tannenbaum et al. | May 1999 | A |
| 5901214 | Shaffer et al. | May 1999 | A |
| 5901229 | Fujisaki et al. | May 1999 | A |
| 5901246 | Hoffberg et al. | May 1999 | A |
| 5903454 | Hoffberg et al. | May 1999 | A |
| 5903641 | Tonisson | May 1999 | A |
| 5903651 | Kocher | May 1999 | A |
| 5903880 | Biffar | May 1999 | A |
| 5905792 | Miloslavsky | May 1999 | A |
| 5905975 | Ausubel | May 1999 | A |
| 5905979 | Barrows | May 1999 | A |
| 5907601 | David et al. | May 1999 | A |
| 5907608 | Shaffer et al. | May 1999 | A |
| 5910982 | Shaffer et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5912947 | Langsenkamp et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5913195 | Weeren et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5914951 | Bentley et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5915011 | Miloslavsky | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5915093 | Berlin et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5917893 | Katz | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5917903 | Jolissaint | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5918213 | Bernard et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5920477 | Hoffberg et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5920629 | Rosen | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5923745 | Hurd | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5923746 | Baker et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5924016 | Fuller et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5926528 | David | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5926539 | Shtivelman | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5926548 | Okamoto | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5930339 | Nepustil | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5930777 | Barber | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5933480 | Felger | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5933492 | Turovski | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5933498 | Schneck et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5937055 | Kaplan | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5937390 | Hyodo | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5937394 | Wong et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5940493 | Desai et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5940496 | Gisby et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5940497 | Miloslavsky | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5940813 | Hutchings | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5940947 | Takeuchi et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5943403 | Richardson et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5943424 | Berger et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5946387 | Miloslavsky | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5946388 | Walker et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5946394 | Gambuzza | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5946669 | Polk | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5949045 | Ezawa et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5949852 | Duncan | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5949854 | Sato | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5949863 | Tansky | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5952638 | Demers et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5953332 | Miloslavsky | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5953405 | Miloslavsky | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5956392 | Tanigawa et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5956397 | Shaffer et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5960073 | Kikinis et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5960083 | Micali | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5963632 | Miloslavsky | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5963635 | Szlam et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5963648 | Rosen | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5963924 | Williams et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5966429 | Scherer | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5970132 | Brady | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5970134 | Highland et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5974120 | Katz | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5974135 | Breneman et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
| RE36416 | Szlam et al. | Nov 1999 | E |
| 5978465 | Corduroy et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5978467 | Walker et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5978471 | Bokinge | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5978840 | Nguyen et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5982857 | Brady | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5982868 | Shaffer et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5983208 | Haller et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5983214 | Lang et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5987115 | Petrunka et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5987116 | Petrunka et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5987118 | Dickerman et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5987132 | Rowney | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5987140 | Rowney et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5991391 | Miloslavsky | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5991392 | Miloslavsky | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5991393 | Kamen | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5991395 | Miloslavsky | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5991604 | Yi | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5991761 | Mahoney et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5995614 | Miloslavsky | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5995615 | Miloslavsky | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5995948 | Whitford et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5996076 | Rowney et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5999908 | Abelow | Dec 1999 | A |
| 5999919 | Jarecki et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 5999965 | Kelly | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6002760 | Gisby | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6002767 | Kramer | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6003765 | Okamoto | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6005534 | Hylin et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6005928 | Johnson | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6005931 | Neyman et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6005939 | Fortenberry et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6006218 | Breese et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6009149 | Langsenkamp | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6011845 | Nabkel et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6014439 | Walker et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6016344 | Katz | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6016475 | Miller et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6016484 | Williams et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6018579 | Petrunka | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6018724 | Arent | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6018738 | Breese et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6021114 | Shaffer et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6021190 | Fuller et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6021202 | Anderson et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6021399 | Demers et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6021428 | Miloslavsky | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6026149 | Fuller et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6026156 | Epler et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6026379 | Haller et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6029150 | Kravitz | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6029151 | Nikander | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6029161 | Lang et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6031899 | Wu | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6035021 | Katz | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6035402 | Vaeth et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6041116 | Meyers | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6041118 | Michel et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6044135 | Katz | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6044146 | Gisby et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6044149 | Shaham et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6044355 | Crockett et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6044368 | Powers | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6047067 | Rosen | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6047269 | Biffar | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6047887 | Rosen | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6049599 | McCausland et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6049786 | Smorodinsky | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6049787 | Takahashi et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6052453 | Sagady et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6055307 | Behnke et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6055508 | Naor et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6057872 | Candelore | May 2000 | A |
| 6058381 | Nelson | May 2000 | A |
| 6058435 | Sassin et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6061347 | Hollatz et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6061448 | Smith et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6061665 | Bahreman | May 2000 | A |
| 6064667 | Gisby et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6064730 | Ginsberg | May 2000 | A |
| 6064731 | Flockhart et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6064973 | Smith et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6065675 | Teicher | May 2000 | A |
| 6067348 | Hibbeler | May 2000 | A |
| 6070142 | McDonough et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6072864 | Shtivelman et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6072870 | Nguyen et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6078928 | Schnase et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6081750 | Hoffberg et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6084943 | Sunderman et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6097806 | Baker et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6098069 | Yamaguchi | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6102970 | Kneipp | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6104801 | Miloslavsky | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6112181 | Shear et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6112186 | Bergh et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6115462 | Servi et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6115693 | McDonough et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6118865 | Gisby | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6122358 | Shoji et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6122360 | Neyman et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6122364 | Petrunka et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6122484 | Fuller et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6125178 | Walker et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6128280 | Jamoussi et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6128376 | Smith | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6128380 | Shaffer et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6130937 | Fotta | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6134530 | Bunting et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6137862 | Atkinson et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6137870 | Scherer | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6138119 | Hall et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6144737 | Maruyama et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6144964 | Breese et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6146026 | Ushiku | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6147975 | Bowman-Amuah | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6148065 | Katz | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6151387 | Katz | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6154528 | Bennett et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6154535 | Velamuri et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
| RE37001 | Morganstein et al. | Dec 2000 | E |
| 6157655 | Shtivelman | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6157711 | Katz | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6170011 | Macleod Beck et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6170742 | Yacoob | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6173052 | Brady | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6175563 | Miloslavsky | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6175564 | Miloslavsky et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6177932 | Galdes et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6178240 | Walker et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6185283 | Fuller et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6185292 | Miloslavsky et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6185683 | Ginter et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6192121 | Atkinson et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6192413 | Lee et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6201950 | Fuller et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6205207 | Scherer | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6208970 | Ramanan | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6212178 | Beck et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6223165 | Lauffer | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6226287 | Brady | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6226289 | Williams et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6226360 | Goldberg et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6229888 | Miloslavsky | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6230197 | Beck et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6233332 | Anderson et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6236978 | Tuzhilin | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6236980 | Reese | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6243684 | Stuart et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6253193 | Ginter et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6256648 | Hill et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6266649 | Linden et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6308175 | Lang et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6314420 | Lang et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6317718 | Fano | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6317722 | Jacobi et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6321179 | Glance et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6321221 | Bieganski | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6327590 | Chidlovskii et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6333979 | Bondi et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6333980 | Hollatz et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6334127 | Bieganski et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6334131 | Chakrabarti et al. | Dec 2001 | B2 |
| 6345264 | Breese et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6347139 | Fisher et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6353813 | Breese et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
| 6356632 | Foster et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
| 6356899 | Chakrabarti et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
| 6389372 | Glance et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6400996 | Hoffberg et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6405922 | Kroll | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6408064 | Fedorov et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6412012 | Bieganski et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6418424 | Hoffberg et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6421709 | McCormick et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6430558 | Delano | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6446035 | Grefenstette et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6449367 | VanWie et al. | Sep 2002 | B2 |
| 6453038 | McFarlane et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6459784 | Humphrey et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6463299 | Macor | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6466654 | Cooper et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6466909 | Didcock | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6466970 | Lee et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6470077 | Chan | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6477245 | Chevet et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6477246 | Dolan et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6477494 | Hyde-Thomson et al. | Nov 2002 | B2 |
| 6480844 | Cortes et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6484123 | Srivastava | Nov 2002 | B2 |
| 6487533 | Hyde-Thomson et al. | Nov 2002 | B2 |
| 6493432 | Blum et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6493696 | Chazin | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6496568 | Nelson | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6510220 | Beckett et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6510221 | Fisher et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6519259 | Baker et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6519459 | Chavez et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6522726 | Hunt et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6529870 | Mikkilineni | Mar 2003 | B1 |
| 6529891 | Heckerman | Mar 2003 | B1 |
| 6704410 | McFarlane et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6745172 | Mancisidor et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6771765 | Crowther et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6782391 | Scher | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 20010000458 | Shtivelman | Apr 2001 | A1 |
| 20010024497 | Campbell et al. | Sep 2001 | A1 |
| 20020006191 | Weiss | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020009190 | McIllwaine et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020019846 | Miloslavsky et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
| 20030002646 | Gutta | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030191632 | Sumner et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20040111310 | Szlam et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040165717 | McIlwaine et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 10180763 | Jun 2002 | US |
| Child | 11532883 | US |
