Patent Application
20100100824
Workgroups comprise persons and/or infrastructure working together to achieve a goal. For example, a first-level workgroup in a call center comprises human resources and computing resources to successfully resolve (or delegate to another higher-level workgroup) each incoming call. Workgroups can be complex and work at all hours in disparate geographies, especially information technology (“IT”) support workgroups. Also, the dynamics between workgroups are complex and lack transparency. As such, it is difficult to understand the improvement in performance possible via restructuring workgroups by merging, splitting, adding, or eliminating workgroups as well as increasing, decreasing, or moving resources within workgroups. Because of the lack of clear support for restructuring decisions, resources are used inefficiently.
For a detailed description of the embodiments of the invention, reference will now be made to the accompanying drawings in which:
Certain terms are used throughout the following claims and description to refer to particular components, and different entities may refer to a component by different names. However, this document does not intend to distinguish between components that differ in name but not function. In the following discussion and in the claims, the terms “including” and “comprising” are used in an open-ended fashion, and thus should be interpreted to mean “including, but not limited to . . . .” Also, the term “couple” or “couples” is intended to mean an optical, wireless, indirect electrical, or direct electrical connection. Thus, if a first device couples to a second device, that connection may be through an indirect electrical connection via other devices and connections, through a direct optical connection, etc. Additionally, the term “system” refers to a collection of two or more hardware components, and may be used to refer to an electronic device.
A “workgroup” is defined as at least one person and/or infrastructure working together to achieve a goal.
“Graphical representations” of workgroups, which includes graphical representations of relationships between workgroups, is defined as an image symbolizing the workgroup or the relationship, the visual features of the image, e.g., shape, dimension, color, etc., symbolizing metrics or characteristics of the workgroup or relationship, e.g., quantity of productivity of workgroups, derived from workgroup data.
“Workgroup data” is defined as the values of variables about workgroups, e.g., a workgroup comprises 10 human resources, a workgroup is located in Texas, etc.
The following discussion is directed to various embodiments of the invention. Although one or more of these embodiments may be preferred, the embodiments disclosed should not be interpreted, or otherwise used, as limiting the scope of the disclosure, including the claims, unless otherwise specified. In addition, one skilled in the art will understand that the following description has broad application, and the discussion of any embodiment is meant only to be exemplary of that embodiment, and not intended to intimate that the scope of the disclosure, including the claims, is limited to that embodiment.
Systems and methods for a graphical user interface (“GUI”) for resource management is disclosed. Preferably, the GUI is a decision support tool for various types of analyses such as performance analysis, business impact analysis, and assisted design of a workgroup hierarchy, all of which provide insight into the structure and the dynamics of the hierarchy. Referring to
Referring to
Preferably, the processor 102 causes the display 104 to output graphical representations of workgroups based on workgroup data. Workgroup data comprises the values of variables about workgroups, e.g., the size of a workgroup, the location of a workgroup, etc. In at least one embodiment, the workgroup data is alphanumeric. Alphanumeric data does not convey information as efficiently or effectively as graphical representations of the workgroup data do. For example, consider a workgroup that requires an increasing yearly cost to operate. Given only alphanumeric data of the yearly cost of the workgroup, it is not immediately apparent whether the rate of increasing yearly cost is increasing or decreasing because additional calculations are required. However, given a chart of the yearly cost of the workgroup, it is immediately apparent whether the rate of increase is increasing or decreasing because the chart conveys the slope of connecting lines between the data points representing yearly cost. In this way, graphical representations of workgroups, including the relationships between workgroups, effectively and efficiently communicate deployment of resources within an entity. The graphical representations can also communicate metrics of the workgroup data. The graphical representations are displayed via a GUI on display 104.
A call center connects consumers with knowledgeable staff trained to troubleshoot difficulties the consumer has with a product or service. The connection is preferably over the telephone (voice line) or Internet (data line). The depicted call center of
Visual features of the graphical representations 210, 212, 214, 216, 284, 288, 292, 294, 296, 298 comprise the size, shape, color, shading, and thickness of the border of the graphical representations as well as the layout of the graphical representations, e.g., the distances between graphical representations. The visual features displayed are based on metrics of the workgroup data. For example, in at least one embodiment, the metrics comprise any or all of quantity of productivity of workgroups, quality of productivity of workgroups, quantity of resources of workgroups, quality of resources or workgroups, delegation of responsibility between workgroups, and type of workgroups. Many such metrics are possible. In at least one embodiment, a decision maker can quickly deduce that workgroup 210 resolves the most calls/tickets because the border of workgroup 210 is thicker than the borders of workgroups 212 and 214, which are themselves thicker than the border of workgroup 216. Similarly, the decision maker can quickly deduce that workgroup 216 is of a different type than workgroups 210, 212, and 214 because the shape of workgroup 216 is different than the shape of workgroups 210, 212, and 214. The decision maker can also quickly deduce that workgroup 210 comprises more resources than workgroup 212, 214, and 216 because the size of the graphical representation of workgroup 210 is larger than the sizes of the graphical representations of workgroups 212, 214, and 216. The decision maker can also quickly deduce that workgroup 216 resolves a large percentage all of the tickets delegated to it because the arrow 297 directed away from workgroup 216 is relatively thin. The decision maker can also quickly deduce that level-2 workgroups 212, 214 receive more tickets from the level-1 workgroup 210 than they send to the level-1 workgroup 210 because the arrows representing the tickets are thicker in the direction from the level-1 workgroup 210 to the level-2 workgroups 212, 214. The mapping of metrics to visual features is highly customizable and any metric can be mapped to any visual feature. Each mapping allows for faster deduction of workgroup dynamics than viewing the workgroup data, or even the metrics, in alphanumeric form, e.g., in a table. Though not shown here, the color of a graphical representation of a workgroup is used to represent a metric in at least one embodiment. Also, the mapping may be changed at any time to accommodate the needs of the decision maker.
The processor 102 preferably accepts as input a constraint to a particular workgroup or relationship between workgroups via manipulation or modification by a user of the particular workgroup's or relationship's graphical representation. Consequently, the processor 102 causes the display 104 to output updated graphical representations of the workgroups and relationships based on application of the constraint to the workgroup data. Preferably, the graphical representations are updated each time a constraint is input. In at least one embodiment, application of the constraint to the workgroup data comprises constraining a value of at least one variable of the workgroup data and determining values of any remaining variables of the workgroup data affected by constraining the variable. For example, using a computer mouse, the user can point to the graphical representation of workgroup 210, press the left mouse button, drag the computer mouse pointer away from the center of the graphical representation thus expanding the size of the graphical representation, and release the left mouse button. If the number of resources is mapped to the size of the graphical representation, then by expanding the size of the graphical representation, the user is increasing the number of resources. Thus, a minimum constraint in the number of resources of workgroup 210 will be applied. Consequently, if the average hold time before connection with representative is mapped to the thickness of the border of the graphical representation of the workgroup (less hold time resulting in a thicker border), the border of the graphical representation of the workgroup 210 will be updated to be thicker because the increased resources result in a lesser average hold time before connection with representative. This update occurs without any further input from the user after expanding the graphical representation of workgroup 210. In this way, every affected graphical representation is updated based on the constraints applied.
Examples of constraints that can be applied comprise elimination of a workgroup, addition of a workgroup, merging multiple workgroups into a single workgroup, splitting a workgroup into multiple workgroups, increasing the resources of a workgroup, decreasing the resources of a workgroup, specifying a minimum amount of delegation of responsibility between workgroups, specifying a maximum amount of delegation of responsibility between workgroups, and specifying a ratio of delegation of responsibility between workgroups. Many constraints and combination of restraints are possible.
Referring to
In a similar fashion, the decision maker uses the GUI 200 as a guide to carrying out analyses of combinations of scenarios together. Preferably, the processor 102 simulates ticket lifecycles with transition probabilities between workgroups that are set by default to be equal to the frequencies of transitions observed from the workgroup data. For example, if workgroup 212 delegated 25% of its received tickets to workgroup 216 before deletion of workgroup 214, workgroup 212 would still delegate 25% of its tickets to workgroup 216 after deletion of workgroup 214, but the absolute number of tickets would double if workgroup 212 and 214 were servicing the same amount of tickets before deletion of workgroup 214. Similarly, any workgroup data affected by the application of the constraint is updated in the graphical representation of the workgroups proportionally to previous probabilities within the bounds of the constraint. Any violation of the bounds of the constraint or inefficient use of resources, e.g., level-3 workgroup handling level-2 tickets because all level-2 workgroups have been deleted, are preferably flagged with abnormal status indicators.
Referring to
Referring to
Secondary attributes of workgroups and their relationships are represented by mini icons 504 drawn near to graphical representations of workgroups, e.g., 210, on the map. As illustrated, the mini icons 504 display textual information about the workgroups and relationships between workgroups. For example, the mini icons 504 surrounding workgroup 210 indicate the workgroup is a level-1 workgroup (“L1”) with 23 human resources (“23”) and redirects 45% (“45%”) of its tickets to workgroup 214. Graphical mini icons are used in at least one embodiment. In at least one embodiment, the mini icons 504 can be enabled and disabled on the GUI 200. In at least one embodiment, a workgroup information pane 506 is displayed. The pane 506 shows information about the selected workgroup such as structural information (name, manager, contacts, location, technicians, specialty, staff, etc.), and collates information useful for performance analysis (number of tickets processed, received ticket/resolved ticket ratio, efficiency, productivity, etc.). As depicted, workgroup 210 is selected and consequently filled in. Preferably, a drop-down menu 508 is provided allowing selected workgroups to be, for example, merged, split, allocated increased resources, allocated decreased resources, given a minimum amount of delegation of responsibility, given a maximum amount of delegation of responsibility, given a ratio of delegation of responsibility, etc.
By default, a workgroup newly created from an original workgroup preferably receives half of the ticket traffic of the original workgroup and has other attributes identical to the original group. However, in at least one embodiment, such behavior is customizable. For example, slide control 510 is used to determine what ratio of tickets the newly created group is expected to handle. For example, workgroup 210 is selected by depressing and releasing the computer mouse while the computer mouse pointer is within the graphical representation of workgroup 210. Next, a “split” operation is selected from drop-down menu 508. As such two workgroups appear in place of workgroup 210, each workgroup half the size of workgroup 210 because each workgroup is expected to receive half the amount of tickets of workgroup 210. These two workgroups are automatically selected. Next, the user adjusts slide control 510 to disproportionately assign the first workgroup more tickets by moving the slider to the left of center. As such, the first workgroup gets larger while the second workgroup gets smaller. Had the user moved the slider to the right of center, the second workgroup would have been assigned more tickets.
In at least one embodiment, the GUI 200 also supports other views of workgroup data (not depicted in the figures). These views may be selected via a drop-down menu, keyboard shortcuts, etc. In at least one view, a particular time period is shown, e.g., first quarter 2007. Only tickets with of a certain category are shown in another view, e.g., only workgroups that troubleshoot network problems are shown and only redirected network tickets are shown. In at least one view, only tickets with a severity rating of 4 or 5 are shown. Combinations of these views can also be shown. For example, only network tickets with a severity rating of 5 are shown, along with the workgroups that handle them. Many such categories, views, and combinations are possible.
In at least one embodiment, the processor 102 causes the display 104 to output an animation of the graphical representations being updated. Returning to
Returning to
The above discussion is meant to be illustrative of the principles and various embodiments of the present invention. Numerous variations and modifications will become apparent to those having ordinary skill in the art once the above disclosure is fully appreciated. It is intended that the following claims be interpreted to embrace all such variations and modifications.
