Method and apparatus for multi-contact scheduling

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 7788286
  • Patent Number
    7,788,286
  • Date Filed
    Tuesday, January 18, 2005
    19 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, August 31, 2010
    13 years ago
Abstract
A method and apparatus for generating an agent schedule for a multi-contact center that has immediate queues and deferred queues. In one embodiment, a method includes scheduling software receiving a plurality of scheduling data from a user interface, and the scheduling software generating a plurality of scheduling constraints. The method further includes a search engine using the plurality of scheduling constraints to generate a plurality of potential schedules including first potential schedules for immediate queues, and second potential schedules for deferred queues. The method further includes performing a first analysis on the first potential schedules to generate first estimated service levels, and performing a second analysis on the second potential schedules to generate second estimated service levels, wherein the first estimated service levels and the second estimated service levels are expressed in interchangeable units.
Description
FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The invention is in the field of generating complex schedules in dynamic environments, such as multi-contact centers.


BACKGROUND

Generating schedules for employees is a complex problem for enterprises. Telephone call center scheduling is an example of a scheduling problem with a large number of variables. Variables include contact volume at a particular time of day, available staff, skills of various staff members, call type (e.g., new order call and customer service call), and number of call queues, where a queue may be assigned a particular call type. A basic goal of call center scheduling is to minimize the cost of operators, or agents, available to answer calls while maximizing service. Quality of service, or service level, can be quantified in various ways. One common metric for call service level is the percentage of incoming calls answered in a predetermined time, e.g. thirty seconds. The call center may receive calls of various types that are assigned to respective call queues.


Traditionally, call center scheduling is performed by first forecasting incoming contact volumes and estimating average talk times for each time period t (based on past history and other measures). The forecast is based upon historical data. Next, a closed-form formula known as reverse Erlang-C is used to compute full-time equivalent (FTE) agent requirement to provide a desired service level for each time period t. Such a method is described in Elementary Queuing Theory and Telephone Traffic, by Petr Beckmann, 1977, and in Lee's ABC of the Telephone Training Manuals, Geneva, Ill. After the FTE agent requirement are computed, the required number of agents is scheduled for each time period t.


At a call center, calls of different types are typically placed onto different queues by an Automatic Call Distributor (ACD). The calls wait at the ACD for an operator to answer them. The ACD is typically for handling telephone calls. Different types of calls are assigned to different call queues. Typically, not all agents have the same skills, and thus some agents can answer some calls while other agents cannot. Scheduling for varying agent skill sets is the skill-based scheduling problem. The skill-based scheduling problem is considerably more difficult than the basic call center scheduling problem because of all the interactions between queues. Typical approaches to solving the skill-based scheduling problem involve variations on an Erlang formula. The Erlang formulas are useful for computing staffing requirements for telephone contacts where the average contact volume is high, service level requirements are stringent, the task of answering a telephone call is not interruptible, and an agent can only answer one telephone call at a given time. Service level is expressed as a percentage of incoming calls that can be answered in within a maximum time limit. An example of stringent service levels is 80%-90% of incoming calls to be answered within 20-60 seconds.


In the past few years, however, call centers have evolved into “contact centers” in which the agent's contact with the customer can be through many contact media. For example, a multi-contact call center may handle telephone, email, web callback, web chat, fax, and voice over internet protocol (IP). Therefore, in addition to variation in the types of calls (e.g., service call, order call), modern contact centers have the complication of variation in contact media. The variation in contact media adds complexity to the agent scheduling process. For example, one of the ways in which contact media can vary markedly is in time allowed for response to the contact. Telephone calls are typically expected to be answered when they are received, or in “real-time”. If a caller does not receive a real-time answer in a fairly short time, the caller hangs up, abandoning the call. If a contact is by email or fax, on the other hand, the customer does not expect a real-time response. Therefore response times for various contact media vary from seconds to days.


Call centers have traditionally had to respond immediately to their telephone customers, and therefore the incoming telephone call queues are called on-line queues. In multi-contact call centers, however, an agent may be required to respond to incoming customer contacts from other queues, such as e-mail and faxed requests, in addition to responding to customer contacts from “immediate” queues, such as telephone calls and computer chats. Email and fax contact do not require immediate responses, but can be deferred. As with traditional telephone call centers, agents can only answer the types of calls for which they have the appropriate training and/or experience. Because all agents must be scheduled across immediate and deferred queues, in addition to all of the traditional scheduling constraints, the multi-contact scheduling problem is considerably complex.


Common techniques for scheduling staff in contact centers that have both immediate and deferred queues are inadequate. For example, in typical scheduling techniques, immediate queues are dealt with in terms of immediate performance measures such as average time to answer and service level. Deferred queues are considered only secondarily. Deferred queues are often simply scheduled into the day during lulls in on-line queue demand. No consideration is given to a projected or expected performance of deferred queues.


There are currently no known methods for effectively computing staffing requirements for e-mail, chat, Web callback, and other new media given certain service level requirements and contact arrival rates. Erlang formulas cannot be used because off-line contact media do not conform to Erlang's queuing theory models. Some of the aspects of deferred contacts that do not conform with Erlang models include the interruptibility of tasks, the fact that multiple contacts may be handled simultaneously, and the fact that service levels can be in hours or days, rather than seconds. This limits the effectiveness of the multi-contact center because there is no common performance measure for immediate and deferred queues, and thus no way to assess possible trade-offs between assigning agents to immediate queues versus deferred e queues. Another disadvantage of current scheduling methods that a call center manager cannot visualize queue performance in a type-independent manner and therefore must make adjustments to the schedule without the benefit of data to direct the adjustments.


SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE

A method and apparatus for multi-contact scheduling is described. Embodiments of the invention can be used with existing scheduling software to produce agent schedules for contact centers that handle on-line “immediate” and off-line “deferred” contact queues. One embodiment includes scheduling software receiving a scheduling data from a user interface, and the scheduling software generating scheduling constraints. A search engine uses the scheduling constraints to generate potential schedules, including potential schedules for immediate queues, and potential schedules for deferred queues. An analysis is performed on the potential schedules for the immediate queues. The analysis for the immediate queues can be preformed using existing analysis tools. In addition, an analysis is performed on the potential schedules for the deferred queues. The analyses produce estimated service levels expressed in interchangeable units. The immediate and deferred queues can thus be commonly assessed, allowing the choice of a schedule that is optimized both for immediate queues and deferred queues.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an embodiment of a system for multi-contact schedule generation.



FIG. 2 is a simplified flow diagram of an embodiment of schedule generation, including an a schedule analysis adapted to deferred queues.



FIG. 3 is a simplified flow diagram of an embodiment of schedule generation for immediate and deferred queues.



FIG. 4 is a more detailed flow diagram of an embodiment of a schedule analysis adapted to deferred queues.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION

A method and apparatus for multi-contact scheduling is described. Embodiments of the invention allow scheduling of immediate contact queues and deferred contact queues for a contact center. Potential agent schedules are analyzed and estimated service levels are generated for both immediate queues and deferred queues in common units. An optimized schedule that takes into account all types of contacts can thus be generated.



FIG. 1 is an embodiment of a system 100 for generating complex schedules. The system includes multiple client computers 102-105, which are coupled to the server 106 through a network 108. The network 108 can be any network, such as a local area network, a wide area network, or the Internet. The client computers each include one or more processors and one or more storage devices. Each of the client computers also includes a display device, and one or more input devices. The server 106 includes one or more storage devices. All of the storage devices store various data and software programs. In one embodiment, methods for generating complex schedules are carried out on the system 100 by software instructions executing on one or more of the client computers 102-105. The software instructions may be stored on the server 106 or on any one of the client computers. For example, one embodiment is a hosted application used by a call center of an enterprise that requires complex scheduling of many employees, or agents. The software instructions are stored on the server and accessed through the network by a client computer operated by the enterprise. In other embodiments, the software instructions may be stored and executed on the client computer. Data required for the execution of the software instructions can be entered by a user of the client computer through a specialized user interface. Data required for the execution of the software instructions can also be accessed via the network and can be stored anywhere on the network.


One example of a complex schedule is an agent schedule for a multi-contact center, or contact center. A contact center is an organization that responds to incoming contacts from customers of an enterprise. The incoming contacts are via any one of a number of contact media, such as telephone calls, email, fax, web chat, voice over internet protocol, and call backs. An agent is an employee that is trained to respond to various contacts according to both the content and the medium of the contact. Each agent can have a different skill set. For example, one agent may be trained to answer live telephone help inquiries regarding certain products, respond to email regarding certain products, receive telephone purchase orders for certain products, etc. Typically, incoming contacts are assigned to different queues based upon the content and/or medium of the contact. In embodiments of the invention, contact queues are divided into at least two types of queues. One type of queue is an immediate queue for contacts that can be abandoned and should be responded to in real-time, such as telephone calls. Another type of queue is a deferred queue for contacts that cannot be abandoned (at least not immediately) and should be responded to within some time period after receipt, such as email or fax.


An agent may be assigned to multiple contact queues within a time period. A contact queue typically handles one type of contact requiring a particular skill or skills. The possible number of skill sets includes every permutation of combinations of the existing skills in the organization. Each agent has a particular skill set, but the skill sets among different agents may overlap. In embodiments of the invention, as described more fully below, a user who is performing scheduling can produce a schedule that most efficiently uses available agents across contact media, taking into account the widely varying acceptable response times of different contact media. For example, telephone calls must be responded to in seconds, while fax contacts may be responded to in some number of days.


Traditionally there are two important measures for immediate queue performance. One measure is percentage of calls answered, or PCA, which represents the service level provided by the queue. The other measure is based upon the number of agents servicing a queue (agents available) and the number of agents required on the queue (agents required) in order to meet service level goals. Embodiments of the invention estimate values of PCA, agents available, and agents required for deferred queues using discrete mathematical analysis as further described below. Any other performance measures may be used in various embodiments, such as average speed to answer. Embodiments of the invention present the performance measures for immediate and deferred queues in an identical way, which facilitates visualization of potential schedules and human decision-making.



FIG. 2 is a simplified flow diagram of an embodiment of schedule generation that is capable of analyzing deferred queue performance and representing that performance using the same measures traditionally used for immediate queues. At 202, a user enters scheduling data via a user interface that is specifically designed for the agent scheduling process. The scheduling data applies to a schedule period that includes multiple intervals of predetermined length. For example, the scheduling period can be one day with intervals of one half-hour. The scheduling data includes the type of contact media, the expected contact volume, the expected contact handle times, service goals, agent designations, and work rules. Some of the data, such as expected contact handle times, is derived from historical data. In one embodiment, the scheduling data includes data for deferred queues. In other embodiments, the scheduling data includes data for immediate and deferred queues.


At 204, scheduling software receives the scheduling data. The scheduling software is an existing tool for analyzing the scheduling data and generating scheduling constraints, including workload forecasts and service goals. The scheduling constraints are sent to a search engine at 206. The search engine generates potential schedules for analysis. At 208, analysis of schedules for deferred queues is performed to produce estimated service levels for the deferred queues according to the potential schedule that was analyzed. The analysis of 208 is performed using a forward-push discrete event modeler which estimates PCA for deferred queues given the workload and capacity in any given interval within the schedule period. PCA for deferred queues is used by the agent requirement scoring function at 210, along with service goals, to produce an agent requirement score. The analysis of 208 will be described more fully with reference to FIG. 4. The agent requirement score is used by the search engine 206 to evaluate the schedule. A schedule with the highest agent requirement score of all of the analyzed schedules is output as an “optimal” schedule to the user interface 202. The flow of FIG. 2 produces an optimal schedule, including optimal schedules for deferred queues as measured by traditional metrics used for immediate queues.


In another embodiment, which will now be described with reference to the flow diagram of FIG. 3, optimal schedules for both immediate and deferred queues are produced in one embodiment, and each type of queue is analyzed separately. One analysis is used for deferred queues, and another analysis is used for immediate queues. At 302, the user enters scheduling data via a user interface. The scheduling data is similar to that described with reference to FIG. 2. The scheduling data applies to both immediate queues and deferred queues. The scheduling software, at 304, uses the scheduling data to generate scheduling constraints, workload forecast for both immediate queues and deferred queues, and service goals for all queues. At 306, the search engine uses the scheduling constraints to generate potential schedules for both immediate queues and deferred queues. In one embodiment, a single schedule including both types of queues is received by the deferred queue analysis at 308, and by the immediate queue analysis at 310. The deferred queue analysis generates estimated service levels for queues as described with reference to FIG. 2. The immediate queue analysis generates estimated service levels according to conventional techniques such as Erlang-based analysis. The estimated service levels for the immediate queues and deferred queues are in the same or interchangeable units, so that both types of queues are scored together by the agent requirement scoring function at 312. This generates a score that reflects the effectiveness of the potential schedule in utilizing all of the available agents, with their varying skill sets, across different contact queues. An agent requirement score is received by the search engine 306, which designates an optimal schedule. In one embodiment, a schedule is evaluated for each queue in the schedule. For example, each queue will have potentially different agents available and agents required. If some of the queues are deferred, and some are immediate, the methods for calculating the agent requirements and agents available are different for the two types of queues. All of the agent requirements and agents available are combined into one score, however, so that the order or method of queue evaluation is irrelevant. The optimal schedule is the schedule with the best agent requirement score of all of the potential schedules analyzed. The optimal schedule is output to the user via the interface 302.


In one embodiment, the queue analysis designated by 208 in FIG. 2 and by 308 in FIG. 3 is a forward push discrete event modeler. The forward push discrete event modeler will be described with reference to Table 1 through Table 3. In each interval, workload is computed by multiplying the forecast contact volume with the forecast average handling time. Capacity is computed by multiplying the number of available agents with the number of seconds in the interval in which they will work on a particular queue. If agents are capable of working on multiple queues in the same time interval, the time they spend on each of the queues is determined by static analysis or occasional explicit simulation of contact arrivals.


Referencing Table 1, the forward push modeler iterates over all intervals starting with the earliest interval and subtracts the capacity from the first interval's workload until all of the first interval's workload is completed. Next, the forward push modeler starts with the second earliest interval and subtracts the capacity from the second interval's workload until all of the second interval's workload is completed. This continues until all of the capacity is used or all of the workload is completed.












TABLE 1









Interval















1
2
3
4
5
6











Initially:















Workload
100
100
100
0
0
0



Capacity
40
40
40
40
40
40







After the 1st Iteration:















Workload
0
100
100
0
0
0



Capacity
0
0
20
40
40
40







After the 2nd Iteration:















Workload
0
0
100
0
0
0



Capacity
0
0
0
0
0
40







After the 3rd. (Final) Iteration















Workload
0
0
60
0
0
0



Capacity
0
0
0
0
0
0










Referencing Table 2, the forward push modeler returns an approximate percentage workload completed within that service time by evaluating the workload remaining (if any) once the number of intervals in the service goal time has elapsed. The percentage workload completed is interchangeable with the traditional measure of PCA, and will be referred to as PCA herein. In Table 2, the service goal time is two intervals. The average speed to answer (ASA) is computed by doing a weighted average of the amounts of workload completed in various intervals and the time elapsed. Interval 1 in Table 2 would have a PCA of 80% because 80 seconds of workload out of 100 seconds were completed within two intervals. In various embodiments, other performance measure than PCA can be determined.









TABLE 2







Service Goal Time = 2 Intervals










Interval (Initial)















1
2
3
4
5
6



















Workload
100
100
100
0
0
0



Capacity
40
40
40
40
40
40



(Remaining)



Workload
0
0
60
0
0
0



Capacity
0
0
0
0
0
0



PCA
80%
20%
0%













Agents available and agents required are computed from the results of the forward push modeler such that the trade-offs with immediate queues that typically have explicit agent requirement can be computed and compared. Agent requirement is calculated by multiplying the workload and the required service goal percentage. Agents available is calculated by multiplying the workload and the PCA and adding the remaining capacity, of there is any. If agent requirement is greater than agents available, then the contact center is understaffed. If agents available is greater than agent requirement, then the contact center is overstaffed. Put another way, PCA exceeds required service goal percentage, or there is unused capacity. With reference to Table 3, the example above, the required service goal percentage is 70 and the service goal time is two intervals. The agent requirement and agents available are shown for each interval in the schedule period.









TABLE 3







Required Service Goal Percent = 70%


Service Goal Time = 2 Intervals










Interval (Initial)















1
2
3
4
5
6



















Workload
100
100
100
0
0
0



Capacity
40
40
40
40
40
40



(Remaining)



Workload
0
0
60
0
0
0



Capacity
0
0
0
0
0
0



PCA
80%
20%
0%






Required
70
70
70
0
0
0



Available
80
20
0














FIG. 4 is a more detailed flow diagram showing the generation of an agent requirement score for deferred queues. The deferred queue analysis 408 is a forward push discrete event modeler. The forward push discrete event modeler 408 receives a potential schedule from the search engine 406. The potential schedule includes capacity for every interval in the schedule period. The forward push discrete event modeler 408 also receives a service goal expressed as time for every interval in the schedule period and a workload for every interval in the schedule period. The forward push event modeler iterates as shown at 408 and as previously described. The agents available formula 414 receives a workload completed percentage for every interval in the schedule period and a capacity for every interval in the schedule period. The agents available formula 414 also receives an agents required figure for every interval which is generated by the agents required formula 416. The agents available formula generates an agents available figure for every interval.


The agents required formula generates the agents required figure from the workload for every interval and the service goal for every interval. The agent requirement score formula 412 receives the agents available figure and the agents required figure and outputs an agent requirement score for the schedule period.


The invention has been described with reference to specific embodiments and examples. The scope of the invention is defined by the claims, and includes modifications that may be made by one of ordinary skill in the art.

Claims
  • 1. A method for generating a schedule for a multi-contact center, wherein the multi-contact center processes a plurality of contact queues, the method comprising: receiving a plurality of scheduling data from a user interface, wherein the plurality of scheduling data includes a plurality of contacts;categorizing the plurality of contacts as immediate contacts or deferred contacts, the immediate contacts being configured to be responded to within a first time period after receipt, the deferred contacts being configured to be responded to within a second time period after receipt, the second time period being longer than the first time period;assigning the plurality of contacts to a plurality of contact queues, the plurality of contact queues including an immediate contact queue and a deferred contact queue, the immediate contact queue comprising the immediate contacts, the deferred contact queue comprising the deferred contacts;generating a plurality of scheduling constraints;generating a plurality of potential schedules based on the plurality of scheduling constraints, the scheduling constraints including expected performance of the immediate contact queue and the deferred contact queue, at least one potential schedule being generated for at least one of the immediate contact queue and the deferred contact queue;performing an analysis on each of the plurality of potential schedules to generate estimated service levels for each of the plurality of contact queues, wherein an estimated service level comprises a percentage of incoming contacts responded to during a predetermined time;generating scores for each of the plurality of potential schedules based on the estimated service levels for each of the plurality of contact queues, wherein the scores indicate an effectiveness of the potential schedules; andselecting an optimal schedule from the plurality of potential schedules based on the scores for each of the plurality of potential schedules.
  • 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of scheduling data further comprises at least one of: at least one contact type, comprising at least one of telephone calls, email, fax, web chat, voice over internet protocol, and call backs;at least one forecast contact volume;at least one forecast contact handling time;at least one service goal;at least one agent designation; andat least one work rule.
  • 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of scheduling constraints comprises at least one of: a service goal time for each interval in a multi-interval schedule period;a workload for each interval in the multi-interval schedule period; anda service goal percentage for each interval in the multi-interval schedule period.
  • 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the immediate contacts include telephone calls and the deferred contacts include email and fax.
  • 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the immediate contacts are configured to be abandoned from the plurality of contact queues and the deferred contacts are configured to not be abandoned from the plurality of contact queues.
  • 6. A system for generating a schedule for a multi-contact center, wherein the multi-contact center processes a plurality of contact queues, the system comprising: at least one server comprising at least one storage device; andat least one client processor being coupled to the at least one server through a network, the at least one client processor being coupled to a plurality of storage devices, including a storage device that stores instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one client processor to: receive a plurality of scheduling data from a user interface, the plurality of scheduling data including a plurality of contacts,categorize the plurality of contacts as immediate contacts or deferred contacts, the immediate contacts being configured to be responded to within a first time period after receipt, the deferred contacts being configured to be responded to within a second time period after receipt, the second time period being longer than the first time period,assign the plurality of contacts to the plurality of contact queues, including an immediate contact queue and a deferred contact queue, the immediate contact queue comprising the immediate contacts, the deferred contact queue comprising the deferred contacts,generate a plurality of scheduling constraints,generate a plurality of potential schedules based on the plurality of scheduling constraints, the scheduling constraints including expected performance of the immediate contact queue and the deferred contact queue, at least one potential schedule being generated for at least one of the immediate contact queue and the deferred contact queue,perform an analysis on each of the plurality of potential schedules to generate estimated service levels for each of the plurality of contact queues, wherein an estimated service level comprises a percentage of incoming contacts responded to during a predetermined time,generate scores for each of the plurality of potential schedules based on the estimated service levels for each of the plurality of contact queues, wherein the scores indicate an effectiveness of the potential schedules, andselect an optimal schedule from the plurality of potential schedules based on the scores for each of the plurality of potential schedules.
  • 7. The system of claim 6, wherein the storage device that stores the instructions is accessed by the at least one processor on the network.
  • 8. The system of claim 6, wherein the storage device that stores the instructions is the at least one storage device of the server.
  • 9. The system of claim 6, wherein the plurality of scheduling data comprises at least one of: at least one contact type, comprising at least one of telephone calls, email, fax, web chat, voice over internet protocol, and call backs;at least one forecast contact volume;at least one forecast contact handling time;at least one service goal;at least one agent designation; andat least one work rule.
  • 10. The system of claim 6, wherein the plurality of scheduling constraints comprises at least one of: a service goal time for each interval in a multi-interval schedule period;a workload for each interval in a multi-interval schedule period; anda service goal percentage for each interval in the multi-interval schedule period.
  • 11. The system of claim 6, wherein the immediate contacts include telephone calls and the deferred contacts include email and fax.
  • 12. A method for generating a schedule for a multi-contact center comprising: receiving a plurality of scheduling data from a user interface, wherein the plurality of scheduling data includes a plurality of contacts;categorizing the plurality of contacts as immediate contacts or deferred contacts, the immediate contacts being configured to be responded to within a first time period after receipt, the deferred contacts being configured to be responded to within a second time period after receipt;assigning the plurality of contacts to a plurality of contact queues, the plurality of contact queues including an immediate contact queue and a deferred contact queue, the immediate contact queue comprising the immediate contacts, the deferred contact queue comprising the deferred contacts;generating a plurality of scheduling constraints;generating a plurality of potential schedules based on the plurality of scheduling constraints, the scheduling constraints including expected performance of the immediate contact queue and the deferred contact queue, at least one potential schedule being generated for each of the plurality of contact queues;performing an analysis on each of the plurality of potential schedules to generate estimated service levels for each of the plurality of contact queues, wherein an estimated service level comprises a percentage of incoming contacts responded to during a predetermined time;generating scores for each of the plurality of potential schedules based on the estimated service levels for each of the plurality of contact queues, wherein the scores indicate an effectiveness of the potential schedules; andselecting an optimal schedule from the plurality of potential schedules based on the scores for each of the plurality of potential schedules.
  • 13. The method of claim 12, wherein the plurality of scheduling data further comprises at least one of: at least one contact type, comprising at least one of telephone calls, email, fax, web chat, voice over internet protocol, and call backs;at least one forecast contact volume;at least one forecast contact handling time;at least one service goal;at least one agent designation; andat least one work rule.
  • 14. The method of claim 12, wherein the plurality of scheduling constraints comprises at least one of: a service goal time for each interval in a multi-interval schedule period;a workload for each interval in the multi-interval schedule period; anda service goal percentage for each interval in the multi-interval schedule period.
  • 15. The method of claim 14, wherein the analysis comprises generating the estimated service levels using a workload for each interval in the multi-interval schedule period, and a capacity for each interval in the multi-interval schedule period.
  • 16. The method of claim 15, wherein the workload is generated by multiplying a forecast contact volume with a forecast average contact handling time.
  • 17. The method of claim 15, wherein the capacity for an interval is generated by multiplying a number of available agents with a number of seconds that the number of available agents works on a contact queue.
  • 18. The method of claim 17, wherein the analysis further comprises iterating over successive intervals in the multi-interval schedule period in chronological order until a total capacity for the multi-interval schedule period is used or a total workload for the multi-interval schedule period is completed, wherein iterating comprises: applying a capacity for a first interval to a workload of the first interval; andif the workload of the first interval is not completed by the capacity for the first interval, applying a capacity for a subsequent interval to the workload of the first interval.
  • 19. The method of claim 12, wherein the immediate contacts include telephone calls and the deferred contacts include email and fax.
  • 20. The method of claim 12, wherein the immediate contacts are configured to be abandoned from the plurality of contact queues and the deferred contacts are configured to not be abandoned from the plurality of contact queues.
Parent Case Info

This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/846/016, filed Apr. 30, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,952,732 which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.

US Referenced Citations (199)
Number Name Date Kind
3594919 De Bell et al. Jul 1971 A
3705271 De Bell et al. Dec 1972 A
4510351 Costello et al. Apr 1985 A
4684349 Ferguson et al. Aug 1987 A
4694483 Cheung Sep 1987 A
4763353 Canale et al. Aug 1988 A
4815120 Kosich Mar 1989 A
4924488 Kosich May 1990 A
4953159 Hayden et al. Aug 1990 A
5016272 Stubbs et al. May 1991 A
5101402 Chiu et al. Mar 1992 A
5111391 Fields et al. May 1992 A
5117225 Wang May 1992 A
5185780 Leggett Feb 1993 A
5195172 Elad et al. Mar 1993 A
5210789 Jeffus et al. May 1993 A
5239460 LaRoche Aug 1993 A
5241625 Epard et al. Aug 1993 A
5267865 Lee et al. Dec 1993 A
5289368 Jordan et al. Feb 1994 A
5299260 Shaio Mar 1994 A
5311422 Loftin et al. May 1994 A
5315711 Barone et al. May 1994 A
5317628 Misholi et al. May 1994 A
5325292 Crockett Jun 1994 A
5347306 Nitta Sep 1994 A
5369570 Parad Nov 1994 A
5388252 Dreste et al. Feb 1995 A
5396371 Henits et al. Mar 1995 A
5432715 Shigematsu et al. Jul 1995 A
5465286 Clare et al. Nov 1995 A
5475625 Glaschick Dec 1995 A
5477447 Luciw et al. Dec 1995 A
5481667 Bieniek et al. Jan 1996 A
5485569 Goldman et al. Jan 1996 A
5491780 Fyles et al. Feb 1996 A
5499291 Kepley Mar 1996 A
5535256 Maloney et al. Jul 1996 A
5572652 Robusto et al. Nov 1996 A
5577112 Cambray et al. Nov 1996 A
5590171 Howe et al. Dec 1996 A
5594790 Curreri et al. Jan 1997 A
5597312 Bloom et al. Jan 1997 A
5619183 Ziegra et al. Apr 1997 A
5659768 Forbes et al. Aug 1997 A
5696906 Peters et al. Dec 1997 A
5717879 Moran et al. Feb 1998 A
5721842 Beasley et al. Feb 1998 A
5742670 Bennett Apr 1998 A
5748499 Trueblood May 1998 A
5778182 Cathey et al. Jul 1998 A
5784452 Carney Jul 1998 A
5790798 Beckett, II et al. Aug 1998 A
5796952 Davis et al. Aug 1998 A
5809247 Richardson et al. Sep 1998 A
5809250 Kisor Sep 1998 A
5822400 Smith Oct 1998 A
5825869 Brooks et al. Oct 1998 A
5835572 Richardson, Jr. et al. Nov 1998 A
5862330 Anupam et al. Jan 1999 A
5864772 Alvarado et al. Jan 1999 A
5884032 Bateman et al. Mar 1999 A
5907680 Nielsen May 1999 A
5917485 Spellman et al. Jun 1999 A
5918214 Perkowski Jun 1999 A
5923746 Baker et al. Jul 1999 A
5930764 Melchione et al. Jul 1999 A
5933811 Angles et al. Aug 1999 A
5944791 Scherpbier Aug 1999 A
5948061 Merriman et al. Sep 1999 A
5958016 Chang et al. Sep 1999 A
5963635 Szlam et al. Oct 1999 A
5964836 Rowe et al. Oct 1999 A
5966695 Melchione et al. Oct 1999 A
5978648 George et al. Nov 1999 A
5982857 Brady Nov 1999 A
5987466 Greer et al. Nov 1999 A
5990852 Szamrej Nov 1999 A
5991373 Pattison et al. Nov 1999 A
5991796 Anupam et al. Nov 1999 A
6005932 Bloom Dec 1999 A
6009429 Greer et al. Dec 1999 A
6014134 Bell et al. Jan 2000 A
6014647 Nizzari et al. Jan 2000 A
6018619 Allard et al. Jan 2000 A
6021403 Horvitz et al. Feb 2000 A
6021428 Miloslavsky Feb 2000 A
6035332 Ingrassia et al. Mar 2000 A
6038544 Machin et al. Mar 2000 A
6039575 L'Allier et al. Mar 2000 A
6044355 Crockett et al. Mar 2000 A
6057841 Thurlow et al. May 2000 A
6058163 Pattison et al. May 2000 A
6061798 Coley et al. May 2000 A
6064973 Smith et al. May 2000 A
6072860 Kek et al. Jun 2000 A
6076099 Chen et al. Jun 2000 A
6078894 Clawson et al. Jun 2000 A
6081592 Battle Jun 2000 A
6091712 Pope et al. Jul 2000 A
6108711 Beck et al. Aug 2000 A
6115693 McDonough et al. Sep 2000 A
6122665 Bar et al. Sep 2000 A
6122668 Teng et al. Sep 2000 A
6130668 Stein Oct 2000 A
6134530 Bunting et al. Oct 2000 A
6138139 Beck et al. Oct 2000 A
6144991 England Nov 2000 A
6146148 Stuppy Nov 2000 A
6151622 Fraenkel et al. Nov 2000 A
6154771 Rangan et al. Nov 2000 A
6157808 Hollingsworth Dec 2000 A
6171109 Ohsuga Jan 2001 B1
6182094 Humpleman et al. Jan 2001 B1
6195679 Bauersfeld et al. Feb 2001 B1
6201948 Cook et al. Mar 2001 B1
6211451 Tohgi et al. Apr 2001 B1
6225993 Lindblad et al. May 2001 B1
6230197 Beck et al. May 2001 B1
6236977 Verba et al. May 2001 B1
6244758 Solymar et al. Jun 2001 B1
6282548 Burner et al. Aug 2001 B1
6286030 Wenig et al. Sep 2001 B1
6286046 Bryant Sep 2001 B1
6288753 DeNicola et al. Sep 2001 B1
6289340 Puram et al. Sep 2001 B1
6301462 Freeman et al. Oct 2001 B1
6301573 McIlwaine et al. Oct 2001 B1
6324282 McIlwaine et al. Nov 2001 B1
6347374 Drake et al. Feb 2002 B1
6351467 Dillon Feb 2002 B1
6353851 Anupam et al. Mar 2002 B1
6360250 Anupam et al. Mar 2002 B1
6370574 House et al. Apr 2002 B1
6389132 Price May 2002 B1
6404857 Blair et al. Jun 2002 B1
6411989 Anupam et al. Jun 2002 B1
6418471 Shelton et al. Jul 2002 B1
6449646 Sikora et al. Sep 2002 B1
6459787 McIlwaine et al. Oct 2002 B2
6487195 Choung et al. Nov 2002 B1
6493446 Cherry Dec 2002 B1
6493758 McLain Dec 2002 B1
6502131 Vaid et al. Dec 2002 B1
6510220 Beckett, II et al. Jan 2003 B1
6535909 Rust Mar 2003 B1
6542602 Elazar Apr 2003 B1
6546405 Gupta et al. Apr 2003 B2
6560328 Bondarenko et al. May 2003 B1
6574605 Sanders et al. Jun 2003 B1
6581105 Miloslavsky et al. Jun 2003 B2
6583806 Ludwig et al. Jun 2003 B2
6584191 McPartlan et al. Jun 2003 B1
6606657 Zilberstein et al. Aug 2003 B1
6661889 Flockhart et al. Dec 2003 B1
6665395 Busey et al. Dec 2003 B1
6665644 Kanevsky et al. Dec 2003 B1
6674447 Chiang et al. Jan 2004 B1
6683633 Holtzblatt et al. Jan 2004 B2
6697858 Ezerzer et al. Feb 2004 B1
6724887 Eilbacher et al. Apr 2004 B1
6738456 Wrona et al. May 2004 B2
6744877 Edwards Jun 2004 B1
6757361 Blair et al. Jun 2004 B2
6771764 Dezonno Aug 2004 B1
6772396 Cronin et al. Aug 2004 B1
6775377 McIlwaine et al. Aug 2004 B2
6792575 Samaniego et al. Sep 2004 B1
6810414 Brittain Oct 2004 B1
6820083 Nagy et al. Nov 2004 B1
6823384 Wilson et al. Nov 2004 B1
6870916 Henrikson et al. Mar 2005 B2
6901438 Davis et al. May 2005 B1
6952732 Nourbakhsh et al. Oct 2005 B2
6959078 Eilbacher et al. Oct 2005 B1
6965886 Govrin et al. Nov 2005 B2
6970829 Leamon Nov 2005 B1
7092509 Mears et al. Aug 2006 B1
7155399 Andre et al. Dec 2006 B2
7158629 Rodenbusch et al. Jan 2007 B2
20010000962 Rajan May 2001 A1
20010032335 Jones Oct 2001 A1
20010043697 Cox et al. Nov 2001 A1
20020038363 MacLean Mar 2002 A1
20020052948 Baudu et al. May 2002 A1
20020065911 Von Klopp et al. May 2002 A1
20020065912 Catchpole et al. May 2002 A1
20020067820 Benson et al. Jun 2002 A1
20020128925 Angeles Sep 2002 A1
20020143597 Andre et al. Oct 2002 A1
20020143925 Pricer et al. Oct 2002 A1
20020165954 Eshghi et al. Nov 2002 A1
20030055883 Wiles et al. Mar 2003 A1
20030079020 Gourraud et al. Apr 2003 A1
20030144900 Whitmer Jul 2003 A1
20030154240 Nygren et al. Aug 2003 A1
20040100507 Hayner et al. May 2004 A1
20040165717 McIlwaine et al. Aug 2004 A1
20050138560 Lee et al. Jun 2005 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (14)
Number Date Country
0453128 Oct 1991 EP
0773687 May 1997 EP
0 817 455 Jan 1998 EP
0 863 650 Sep 1998 EP
0 863 651 Sep 1998 EP
0989720 Mar 2000 EP
1 039 732 Sep 2000 EP
1 162 814 Dec 2001 EP
2 339 643 Feb 2000 GB
2369263 May 2002 GB
WO 9843380 Nov 1998 WO
WO 0008556 Feb 2000 WO
WO 0008556 Feb 2000 WO
WO 0016207 Mar 2000 WO
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20050125439 A1 Jun 2005 US
Continuations (1)
Number Date Country
Parent 09846016 Apr 2001 US
Child 11037604 US