Patent Grant
11954523
The present disclosure generally relates to task assignment systems and, more particularly, to techniques for behavioral pairing in a task assignment system with an external pairing system.
A typical pairing system algorithmically assigns tasks arriving at a task assignment system to agents available to handle those tasks. At times, the task assignment system may be in an “L1 state” and have agents available and waiting for assignment to tasks. At other times, the task assignment system may be in an “L2 state” and have tasks waiting in one or more queues for an agent to become available for assignment. At yet other times, the task assignment system may be in an “L3” state and have multiple agents available and multiple tasks waiting for assignment.
Some traditional pairing systems assign tasks to agents ordered based on time of arrival, and agents receive tasks ordered based on the time when those agents became available. This strategy may be referred to as a “first-in, first-out,” “FIFO,” or “round-robin” strategy. For example, in an L2 environment, when an agent becomes available, the task at the head of the queue would be selected for assignment to the agent.
Other traditional pairing systems may implement a performance-based routing (PBR) strategy for prioritizing higher-performing agents for task assignment. Under PBR, for example, the highest-performing agent among available agents receives the next available task.
“Behavioral Pairing” or “BP” strategies, for assigning tasks to agents, improve upon traditional pairing methods. BP targets balanced utilization of agents while simultaneously improving overall task assignment system performance potentially beyond what FIFO or PBR methods will achieve in practice.
When a pairing system is integrated into a task assignment system and is capable of switching between pairing strategies (e.g., FIFO, PBR, BP, etc.), benchmarking the relative performance of the task assignment system under each pairing strategy may be straightforward given that all the states (e.g., information and events about tasks and agents, pairing strategy used for every task-agent pairing, outcome of every pairing, etc.) of the task assignment system may be readily available to or otherwise retrievable by the pairing system. However, if a pairing system is external to a task assignment system, all the states of task assignment system may not be available to the pairing system for a comprehensive benchmarking. Thus, it may be understood that there may be a need for techniques for behavioral pairing in a task assignment system with an external pairing system.
Techniques for behavioral pairing in a task assignment system with an external pairing system are disclosed. In one particular embodiment, the techniques may be realized as a method for behavioral pairing in a task assignment system with an external pairing system, the method comprising transmitting, by at least one computer processor communicatively coupled to and configured to operate in the task assignment system, to the external pairing system over an application programming interface, a control flag and a benchmark flag. The control flag may indicate whether a task-agent pairing in the task assignment system is to be based on a response by the external pairing system to a routing request sent by the at least computer processor. The benchmark flag may indicate whether the pairing of the task to the agent is to be based on one of a first pairing strategy and a second pairing strategy. The method may further comprise receiving, by the at least one computer processor, from the external pairing system, the task-agent pairing based on one of the first pairing strategy and the second pairing strategy, the task-agent pairing being based at least in part on the control flag and the benchmark flag.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the task assignment system is a contact center system.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the first pairing strategy is a behavioral pairing strategy, and wherein the second pairing strategy is one of a first-in, first-out strategy and a performance-based routing strategy.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the transmitting may further include transmitting events related to at least one of the task and the agent, and wherein the task-agent pairing may further be based on the events.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the first pairing strategy may be provided by the external pairing system, and the second pairing strategy may be provided by one of the external pairing system and the internal pairing system.
In another particular embodiment, the techniques may be realized as a system for behavioral pairing in a task assignment system with an external pairing system comprising at least one computer processor communicatively coupled to and configured to operate in the task assignment system, wherein the at least one computer processor is further configured to perform the steps in the above-described method.
In another particular embodiment, the techniques may be realized as an article of manufacture for behavioral pairing in a task assignment system with an external pairing system comprising a non-transitory processor readable medium and instructions stored on the medium, wherein the instructions are configured to be readable from the medium by at least one computer processor communicatively coupled to and configured to operate in the task assignment system and thereby cause the at least one computer processor to operate so as to perform the steps in the above-described method.
In another particular embodiment, the techniques may be realized as a method for behavioral pairing in an external pairing system communicatively coupled to a task assignment system, the method comprising receiving, by at least one computer processor communicatively coupled to and configured to operate in the external pairing system, from the task assignment system over an application programming interface, a control flag and a benchmark flag. The control flag may indicate whether a task-agent pairing in the task assignment system is to be based on a response by the external pairing system to a routing request received by the at least one computer processor. The benchmark flag may indicate whether the pairing of the task to the agent is to be based on one of a first pairing strategy and a second pairing strategy. The method may further comprise transmitting, by the at least one computer processor, to the task assignment system, the task-agent pairing of the first pairing strategy and the second pairing strategy, the task-agent pairing being based at least in part on the control flag and the benchmark flag.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the task assignment system is a contact center system.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the first pairing strategy is a behavioral pairing strategy, and wherein the second pairing strategy is one of a first-in, first-out strategy and a performance-based routing strategy.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the receiving may further include events related to at least one of the task and the agent, and wherein the task-agent pairing may further be based on the events.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the first pairing strategy may be provided by the external pairing system, and the second pairing strategy may be provided by one of the external pairing system and the internal pairing system.
In another particular embodiment, the techniques may be realized as a system for behavioral pairing in an external pairing system communicatively coupled to a task assignment system comprising at least one computer processor communicatively coupled to and configured to operate in the external pairing system, wherein the at least one computer processor is further configured to perform the steps in the above-described method for behavioral pairing in an external pairing system communicatively coupled to a task assignment system.
In another particular embodiment, the techniques may be realized as an article of manufacture for behavioral pairing in an external pairing system communicatively coupled to a task assignment system comprising a non-transitory processor readable medium and instructions stored on the medium, wherein the instructions are configured to be readable from the medium by at least one computer processor communicatively coupled to and configured to operate in the external pairing system and thereby cause the at least one computer processor to operate so as to perform the steps in the above-described method for behavioral pairing in an external pairing system communicatively coupled to a task assignment system.
The present disclosure will now be described in more detail with reference to particular embodiments thereof as shown in the accompanying drawings. While the present disclosure is described below with reference to particular embodiments, it should be understood that the present disclosure is not limited thereto. Those of ordinary skill in the art having access to the teachings herein will recognize additional implementations, modifications, and embodiments, as well as other fields of use, which are within the scope of the present disclosure as described herein, and with respect to which the present disclosure may be of significant utility.
To facilitate a fuller understanding of the present disclosure, reference is now made to the accompanying drawings, in which like elements are referenced with like numerals. These drawings should not be construed as limiting the present disclosure, but are intended to be illustrative only.
A typical pairing system algorithmically assigns tasks arriving at a task assignment system to agents available to handle those tasks. At times, the task assignment system may be in an “L1 state” and have agents available and waiting for assignment to tasks. At other times, the task assignment system may be in an “L2 state” and have tasks waiting in one or more queues for an agent to become available for assignment. At yet other times, the task assignment system may be in an “L3” state and have multiple agents available and multiple tasks waiting for assignment. An example of a task assignment system is a contact center system that receives contacts (e.g., telephone calls, internet chat sessions, emails, etc.) to be assigned to agents.
Some traditional pairing systems assign tasks to agents ordered based on time of arrival, and agents receive tasks ordered based on the time when those agents became available. This strategy may be referred to as a “first-in, first-out,” “FIFO,” or “round-robin” strategy. For example, in an L2 environment, when an agent becomes available, the task at the head of the queue would be selected for assignment to the agent.
Other traditional pairing systems may implement a performance-based routing (PBR) strategy for prioritizing higher-performing agents for task assignment. Under PBR, for example, the highest-performing agent among available agents receives the next available task.
“Behavioral Pairing” or “BP” strategies, for assigning tasks to agents that improve upon traditional pairing methods. BP targets balanced utilization of agents while simultaneously improving overall task assignment system performance potentially beyond what FIFO or PBR methods will achieve in practice. This is a remarkable achievement inasmuch as BP acts on the same tasks and same agents as FIFO or PBR methods, approximately balancing the utilization of agents as FIFO provides, while improving overall task assignment system performance beyond what either FIFO or PBR provides in practice. BP improves performance by assigning agent and task pairs in a fashion that takes into consideration the assignment of potential subsequent agent and task pairs such that, when the benefits of all assignments are aggregated, they may exceed those of FIFO and PBR strategies.
Various BP strategies may be used, such as a diagonal model BP strategy or a network flow BP strategy. These task assignment strategies and others are described in detail for a contact center context in, e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,300,802, 9,781,269, 9,787,841, and 9,930,180, all of which are hereby incorporated by reference herein. BP strategies may be applied in an L1 environment (agent surplus, one task; select among multiple available/idle agents), an L2 environment (task surplus, one available/idle agent; select among multiple tasks in queue), and an L3 environment (multiple agents and multiple tasks; select among pairing permutations).
When a pairing system is integrated into a task assignment system and is capable of switching between pairing strategies, benchmarking the performance of the task assignment system under each pairing strategy may be straightforward given that all the states of the task assignment system (e.g., information and events about tasks and agents, pairing strategy used for every task-agent pairing, outcome of every pairing, etc.) may be readily available to or otherwise retrievable by the pairing system. As explained in detail below, embodiments of the present disclosure relate to techniques for behavioral pairing in a task assignment system with an external pairing system, where all the states of task assignment system may not be available to the pairing system for a comprehensive benchmarking.
The description herein describes network elements, computers, and/or components of a system and method for pairing strategies in a task assignment system that may include one or more modules. As used herein, the term “module” may be understood to refer to computing software, firmware, hardware, and/or various combinations thereof. Modules, however, are not to be interpreted as software which is not implemented on hardware, firmware, or recorded on a non-transitory processor readable recordable storage medium (i.e., modules are not software per se). It is noted that the modules are exemplary. The modules may be combined, integrated, separated, and/or duplicated to support various applications. Also, a function described herein as being performed at a particular module may be performed at one or more other modules and/or by one or more other devices instead of or in addition to the function performed at the particular module. Further, the modules may be implemented across multiple devices and/or other components local or remote to one another. Additionally, the modules may be moved from one device and added to another device, and/or may be included in both devices.
The pairing system 100 may include a task assignment module 110 that is configured to pair (e.g., match, assign) incoming tasks to available agents. In the example of
In some embodiments, a task assignment strategy module 140 may be communicatively coupled to and/or configured to operate in the pairing system 100. The task assignment strategy module 140 may implement one or more task assignment strategies (or “pairing strategies”) for assigning individual tasks to individual agents (e.g., pairing contacts with contact center agents). A variety of different task assignment strategies may be devised and implemented by the task assignment strategy module 140. In some embodiments, a FIFO strategy may be implemented in which, for example, the longest-waiting agent receives the next available task (in L1 environments) or the longest-waiting task is assigned to the next available agent (in L2 environments). In other embodiments, a PBR strategy for prioritizing higher-performing agents for task assignment may be implemented. Under PBR, for example, the highest-performing agent among available agents receives the next available task. In yet other embodiments, a BP strategy may be used for optimally assigning tasks to agents using information about either tasks or agents, or both. Various BP strategies may be used, such as a diagonal model BP strategy or a network flow BP strategy. See U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,300,802; 9,781,269; 9,787,841; and 9,930,180.
In some embodiments, a historical assignment module 150 may be communicatively coupled to and/or configured to operate in the pairing system 100 via other modules such as the task assignment module 110 and/or the task assignment strategy module 140. The historical assignment module 150 may be responsible for various functions such as monitoring, storing, retrieving, and/or outputting information about task-agent assignments that have already been made. For example, the historical assignment module 150 may monitor the task assignment module 110 to collect information about task assignments in a given period. Each record of a historical task assignment may include information such as an agent identifier, a task or task type identifier, offer or offer set identifier, outcome information, or a pairing strategy identifier (i.e., an identifier indicating whether a task assignment was made using a BP strategy, or some other pairing strategy such as a FIFO or PBR pairing strategy).
In some embodiments and for some contexts, additional information may be stored. For example, in a call center context, the historical assignment module 150 may also store information about the time a call started, the time a call ended, the phone number dialed, and the caller's phone number. For another example, in a dispatch center (e.g., “truck roll”) context, the historical assignment module 150 may also store information about the time a driver (i.e., field agent) departs from the dispatch center, the route recommended, the route taken, the estimated travel time, the actual travel time, the amount of time spent at the customer site handling the customer's task, etc.
In some embodiments, the historical assignment module 150 may generate a pairing model or a similar computer processor-generated model based on a set of historical assignments for a period of time (e.g., the past week, the past month, the past year, etc.), which may be used by the task assignment strategy module 140 to make task assignment recommendations or instructions to the task assignment module 110.
In some embodiments, a benchmarking module 160 may be communicatively coupled to and/or configured to operate in the pairing system 100 via other modules such as the task assignment module 110 and/or the historical assignment module 150. The benchmarking module 160 may benchmark the relative performance of two or more pairing strategies (e.g., FIFO, PBR, BP, etc.) using historical assignment information, which may be received from, for example, the historical assignment module 150. In some embodiments, the benchmarking module 160 may perform other functions, such as establishing a benchmarking schedule for cycling among various pairing strategies, tracking cohorts (e.g., base and measurement groups of historical assignments), etc. Benchmarking is described in detail for the contact center context in, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 9,712,676, which is hereby incorporated by reference herein.
In some embodiments, the benchmarking module 160 may output or otherwise report or use the relative performance measurements. The relative performance measurements may be used to assess the quality of a pairing strategy to determine, for example, whether a different pairing strategy (or a different pairing model) should be used, or to measure the overall performance (or performance gain) that was achieved within the task assignment system while it was optimized or otherwise configured to use one pairing strategy instead of another.
If more than one queue (or subcenter) is part of the task assignment system 200, each queue may include at least one switch (e.g., switches 280A and 280B). The switches 280A and 280B may be communicatively coupled to the central switch 270. Each switch for each queue may be communicatively coupled to a plurality (or “pool”) of agents. Each switch may support a certain number of agents (or “seats”) to be logged in at one time. At any given time, a logged-in agent may be available and waiting to be connected to a task, or the logged-in agent may be unavailable for any of a number of reasons, such as being connected to another task, performing certain post-call functions such as logging information about the call, or taking a break. In the example of
The task assignment system 200 may also be communicatively coupled to an integrated pairing system 290. The pairing system 290 may be native to (or built in) the task assignment system 200 (i.e., “first-party”) or may be a service provided by, for example, a third-party vendor. In the example of
The pairing system 290 may receive information from a switch (e.g., switch 280A) about agents logged into the switch (e.g., agents 230A and 230B) and about incoming tasks 220 via another switch (e.g., central switch 270) or, in some embodiments, from a network (e.g., the Internet or a telecommunications network) (not shown). The pairing system 290 may process this information to determine which tasks should be paired (e.g., matched, assigned, distributed, routed) with which agents.
For example, in an L1 state, multiple agents may be available and waiting for connection to a task, and a task arrives at the task assignment system 200 via a network or the central switch 270. As explained above, without the pairing system 290, a switch will typically automatically distribute the new task to whichever available agent has been waiting the longest amount of time for an agent under a FIFO strategy, or whichever available agent has been determined to be the highest-performing agent under a PBR strategy. With the pairing system 290, contacts and agents may be given scores (e.g., percentiles or percentile ranges/bandwidths) according to a pairing model or other artificial intelligence data model, so that a task may be matched, paired, or otherwise connected to a preferred agent.
In an L2 state, multiple tasks are available and waiting for connection to an agent, and an agent becomes available. These tasks may be queued in a switch such as a PBX or ACD device. Without the pairing system 290, a switch will typically connect the newly available agent to whichever task has been waiting on hold in the queue for the longest amount of time as in a FIFO strategy or a PBR strategy when agent choice is not available. In some task assignment centers, priority queuing may also be incorporated, as previously explained. With the pairing system 290 in this L2 scenario, as in the L1 state described above, tasks and agents may be given percentiles (or percentile ranges/bandwidths, etc.) according to, for example, a model, such as an artificial intelligence model, so that an agent becoming available may be matched, paired, or otherwise connected to a preferred task.
In the task assignment system 200, the pairing system 290 may switch between pairing strategies and benchmark the relative performance of the task assignment system under each pairing strategy (e.g., by using a benchmarking module such as benchmarking module 160 of pairing system 100). The benchmarking results may help to determine which pairing strategy or combination of pairing strategies to use to optimize the overall performance of the task assignment system 200. Given that the pairing system 290 is integrated with—or “internal” to—the task assignment system 200, states of the task assignment system 200 (e.g., information and events about tasks and agents, pairing strategy used for every assignment, etc.) may be readily available to or otherwise retrievable by the pairing system 290 to conduct benchmarking calculations. However, in a task assignment system with an external pairing system, benchmarking may not be as straightforward, as will be described next.
In the task assignment system 300, an internal pairing system 390 may be communicatively coupled to the switch 380. The internal pairing system 390 may be native to (or built in) the task assignment system 300 (i.e., “first-party”) or may be provided by a third-party vendor. Typically, the internal pairing system 390 may implement traditional pairing strategies (e.g., FIFO or PBR) or some other pairing strategy that may be proprietary to the task assignment system 300. However, the internal pairing system 390 may also be in the form of the pairing system 100. The internal pairing system 390 may receive or otherwise retrieve information from the switch 380 about the agents 330 logged into the switch 380 and about the incoming tasks 320.
In the task assignment system 300, the external pairing system 395 may be communicatively coupled to the switch 380 via an interface 385. The interface 385 may isolate the task assignment system 300 from the external pairing system 395 (e.g., for security purposes), and control information exchanged between the two systems. An example of the interface 385 may be a public or a private proprietary application programming interface (API) provided over a network (e.g., the Internet or a telecommunications network) (not shown).
Unlike the internal pairing system 390, the external pairing system 395 may only have access to information that is selected and shared by the switch 380. Such information must be sufficient for the external pairing system 395 to determine optimal task-agent pairings. The external pairing system 395 may be provided by a third-party vendor and may be in the form of the pairing system 100 described above. Importantly, the external pairing system 395 may provide a pairing strategy (e.g., BP) that improves the performance of the task assignment system 300 when compared to the pairing strategy (or strategies) of the internal pairing system 390. The external pairing system 395 may also provide the same or a similar pairing strategy as that of the internal pairing system 390.
The task assignment system 300 may operate under a shared control, in which the switch 380 may send some route requests to the internal pairing system 390 and other route requests to the external pairing system 395, depending on which pairing system should control the pairing and determine which task is to be routed to which agent. The shared control may be desirable, for example, when the internal pairing system 390 employs a traditional or proprietary pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO or PBR) that may not be provided by the external pairing system 395, while the external pairing system 395 is used to provide a higher-performing pairing strategy (e.g., BP).
When the external pairing system 395 includes the same or a similar pairing strategy as that of the internal pairing system 390 (or it can emulate or otherwise simulate the pairing strategy of the internal pairing system 390), the task assignment system 300 may, in some embodiments, operate under full control such that the switch 380 sends all route requests to the external pairing system 395. In other words, the external pairing system 395 has full control on determining every task-agent pairing. Under the full control, at times, the external pairing system 395 may simulate/mimic the pairing strategy of the internal pairing system 390 (e.g., FIFO or PBR) and, at other times, employ a different pairing strategy (e.g., BP), and send its pairing recommendation to the switch 380 over the interface 385. The switch 380 may then assign the tasks 320 to agents 330 based on the pairing recommendation.
In some embodiments, shared control and full control may be a preconfigured setting in the task assignment system 300. In other embodiments, the task assignment system 300 may switch between shared control and full control automatically during runtime or by receiving input from a task assignment system manager or operator. The task assignment system 300 may use a control flag to indicate whether a historical task was assigned by the internal pairing system 390 or the external pairing system 395. The task assignment system 300 may share the control flag with the external pairing system 395 (e.g., for benchmarking purposes) over the interface 385.
Under either shared control or full control, the task assignment system 300 may use a second flag—a benchmark flag—to indicate whether a historical task was an “ON” task or an “OFF” task. An ON task is a task assigned by the external pairing module 395 using a higher-performing pairing strategy (e.g., BP). An OFF task is a task assigned using a traditional pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO or PBR) by either the internal pairing module 390 or the external pairing module 395. When operating in shared control, the task assignment system 300 (or the switch 380) may determine which of the tasks 320 should be ON or OFF. In full control, the task assignment 300 may either (1) mark tasks as ON or OFF prior to sending route requests to the external pairing system 395, or (2) send the route requests to the external pairing system 395 and allow the external pairing system 395 to determine which of the task should be treated as ON or OFF. The determination of the whether a task should be ON or OFF may be based on one or more predetermined schemes or an agreement between the task assignment system 300 and the external pairing system 395. See U.S. Pat. No. 9,712,676.
In some embodiments, the benchmark flag may also be used to indicate that a historical task was paired to an agent by the internal pairing system 390 when the task should have been paired by the external pairing system 395 (i.e., ON tasks under shared control, or both ON and OFF tasks under full control). In these situations, the benchmark flag may be set to a third value, e.g., “Default” instead of “ON” or “OFF”). Historical task assignments flagged as “Default” may be excluded from benchmarking calculations in some embodiments given that such assignments may have been due to unintentional errors or failures in the task assignment system 300.
In some embodiments, it may be desirable for the external pairing system 395 to observe the task assignment system 300 and gather data to build or refine a pairing strategy or pairing model while the internal pairing system 390 assigns tasks 320 to agents 330. Historical tasks assigned in such a fashion may be indicated by setting the benchmark flag to a fourth value, e.g., “Monitor Mode.” Unlike a “Default” benchmark flag that may arise due to an unintentional error or failure in the task assignment system 300, a “Monitor Mode” benchmark flag may be intentional and, therefore, the corresponding historical task may or may not need to be excluded from benchmarking calculations, depending on the configuration of the task assignment system 300. Like the control flag, the task assignment system 300 may share the benchmark flag with the external pairing system 395 (e.g., for benchmarking purposes) over the interface 385.
In task assignment system 300, either the internal pairing system 390 or the external pairing system 395 may benchmark the relative performance of the task assignment system 300 under a traditional pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO or PBR) and a higher-performing pairing strategy (e.g., BP). Since the internal pairing system 390 is integral to the task assignment system 300, states of the task assignment system 300 (e.g., information and events about tasks 320 and agents 330, pairing strategy used for every task-agent pairing, outcome of every pairing, etc.) may be readily available for benchmarking calculations. However, the external pairing system 395 must rely on information provided by the task assignment system 300 over the interface 385 to perform pairing.
In some embodiments, the external pairing system operates in a “stateless” environment, where the task assignment system 300 may provide enough information within each route request for the external pairing system 395 to make a pairing recommendation. For example, in addition to the control flag (indicating shared control or full control) and the benchmark flag (indicating ON tasks, OFF tasks, Default, or Monitor Mode), the task assignment system 300 may provide the external pairing system 395 with an adequate amount of state information within the route request (e.g., the complete set of agents available for pairing and the complete set of tasks available for pairing). In some embodiments, the stateless route request may include additional information, such as an ordered set of agents ordered by idle time and/or an ordered set of tasks ordered by waiting time.
In other embodiment, the external pairing system 395 may be in a “stateful” environment, where the task assignment system 300 provides event information over the interface 385 such that the external pairing system 395 may maintain a mirror image of the state of the task assignment system 300. In other words, every relevant event that takes place in task assignment system 300 is shared with the external pairing system 395, such as such as time of arrival of every task, when an agent becomes available, when an agent logs out, when a call hangs up (in the context of a call center), etc. The interface 385 may support error-checking or reset functionality to help the external pairing system 395 maintain fidelity in the mirrored state with the task assignment system 300.
The task assignment system 300 is illustrated as having a single queue with the single switch 380 for simplicity. The task assignment system 300 could include additional queues with corresponding switches, in which case, either each switch could be communicatively coupled to the internal pairing system 390 and the external pairing system 395, or there could be an internal pairing system and an external pairing system for each switch.
The benchmarking method 400 may begin at block 410. At block 410, the benchmarking method 400 may transmit, to the external pairing system over an API, a control flag and a benchmark flag. As described above, the control flag may indicate whether a pairing of a task to an agent in the task assignment system was based on a response by the external pairing system to a routing request sent by the task assignment system or a routing switch (e.g., switch 380) within the task assignment system.
At block 420, the benchmarking method 400 may receive, from the external pairing system, a task-agent pairing based on a first pairing strategy or a second pairing strategy. The task-agent pairing may be based at least in part on the control flag and the benchmark flag. The first pairing strategy may be a BP strategy and may be provided by the external pairing system. The second pairing strategy may be a FIFO strategy or a PBR strategy and may be provided either by the external pairing system or an internal pairing system (e.g., internal pairing system 390) of the task assignment system.
The benchmarking method 500 may begin at block 510. At block 510, the benchmarking method 500 may receive, from the task assignment system over an API, a control flag and a benchmark flag. The control flag may indicate whether a pairing of a task to an agent in the task assignment system was based on a response by the external pairing system to a routing request received by the external pairing system.
At block 520, the benchmarking method 500 may transmit, to the task assignment system, a task-agent pairing based on a first pairing strategy or a second pairing strategy. The task-agent pairing may be based at least in part on the control flag and the benchmark flag. The first pairing strategy may be a BP strategy and may be provided by the external pairing system. The second pairing strategy may be a FIFO strategy or a PBR strategy and may be provided either by the external pairing system or an internal pairing system (e.g., internal pairing system 390) of the task assignment system.
At this point it should be noted that task assignment in accordance with the present disclosure as described above may involve the processing of input data and the generation of output data to some extent. This input data processing and output data generation may be implemented in hardware or software. For example, specific electronic components may be employed in a behavioral pairing module or similar or related circuitry for implementing the functions associated with task assignment in accordance with the present disclosure as described above. Alternatively, one or more processors operating in accordance with instructions may implement the functions associated with task assignment in accordance with the present disclosure as described above. If such is the case, it is within the scope of the present disclosure that such instructions may be stored on one or more non-transitory processor readable storage media (e.g., a magnetic disk or other storage medium), or transmitted to one or more processors via one or more signals embodied in one or more carrier waves.
The present disclosure is not to be limited in scope by the specific embodiments described herein. Indeed, other various embodiments of and modifications to the present disclosure, in addition to those described herein, will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art from the foregoing description and accompanying drawings. Thus, such other embodiments and modifications are intended to fall within the scope of the present disclosure. Further, although the present disclosure has been described herein in the context of at least one particular implementation in at least one particular environment for at least one particular purpose, those of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that its usefulness is not limited thereto and that the present disclosure may be beneficially implemented in any number of environments for any number of purposes.
This patent application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/970,526, filed Feb. 5, 2020, which is hereby incorporated by reference herein in its entirety.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5155763 | Bigus et al. | Oct 1992 | A |
| 5206903 | Kohler et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
| 5327490 | Cave | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5537470 | Lee | Jul 1996 | A |
| 5702253 | Bryce et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5825869 | Brooks et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5903641 | Tonisson | May 1999 | A |
| 5907601 | David et al. | May 1999 | A |
| 5926538 | Deryugin et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 6021428 | Miloslavsky | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6044355 | Crockett et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6044468 | Osmond | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6049603 | Schwartz et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6052460 | Fisher et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6064731 | Flockhart et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6088444 | Walker et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6163607 | Bogart et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6222919 | Hollatz et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6292555 | Okamoto | Sep 2001 | B1 |
| 6324282 | McIllwaine et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6333979 | Bondi et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6389132 | Price | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6389400 | Bushey et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6408066 | Andruska et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6411687 | Bohacek et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6424709 | Doyle et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6434230 | Gabriel | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6496580 | Chack | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6504920 | Okon et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6519335 | Bushnell | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6519568 | Harvey et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6535600 | Fisher et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
| 6535601 | Flockhart et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
| 6570980 | Baruch | May 2003 | B1 |
| 6587556 | Judkins et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
| 6603854 | Judkins et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
| 6639976 | Shellum et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
| 6661889 | Flockhart et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6704410 | McFarlane et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6707904 | Judkins et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6714643 | Gargeya | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6744878 | Komissarchik et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6763104 | Judkins et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
| 6774932 | Ewing et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6775378 | Villena et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6798876 | Bala | Sep 2004 | B1 |
| 6829348 | Schroeder et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
| 6832203 | Villena et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
| 6859529 | Duncan et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
| 6895083 | Bers et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
| 6922466 | Peterson et al. | Jul 2005 | B1 |
| 6937715 | Delaney | Aug 2005 | B2 |
| 6956941 | Duncan et al. | Oct 2005 | B1 |
| 6970821 | Shambaugh et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
| 6978006 | Polcyn | Dec 2005 | B1 |
| 7023979 | Wu et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
| 7039166 | Peterson et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
| 7050566 | Becerra et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7050567 | Jensen | May 2006 | B1 |
| 7062031 | Becerra et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7068775 | Lee | Jun 2006 | B1 |
| 7092509 | Mears et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
| 7103172 | Brown et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7158628 | McConnell | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7184540 | Dezonno et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
| 7209549 | Reynolds et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
| 7231032 | Nevman et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
| 7231034 | Rikhy et al. | Jun 2007 | B1 |
| 7236584 | Torba | Jun 2007 | B2 |
| 7245716 | Brown et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7245719 | Kawada et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7266251 | Rowe | Sep 2007 | B2 |
| 7269253 | Wu et al. | Sep 2007 | B1 |
| 7353388 | Gilman et al. | Apr 2008 | B1 |
| 7372952 | Wu et al. | May 2008 | B1 |
| 7398224 | Cooper | Jul 2008 | B2 |
| 7593521 | Becerra et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
| 7676034 | Wu et al. | Mar 2010 | B1 |
| 7725339 | Aykin | May 2010 | B1 |
| 7734032 | Kiefhaber et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
| 7798876 | Mix | Sep 2010 | B2 |
| 7826597 | Berner et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
| 7864944 | Khouri et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
| 7899177 | Bruening et al. | Mar 2011 | B1 |
| 7916858 | Heller et al. | Mar 2011 | B1 |
| 7940917 | Lauridsen et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
| 7961866 | Boutcher et al. | Jun 2011 | B1 |
| 7995717 | Conway et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 8000989 | Kiefhaber et al. | Aug 2011 | B1 |
| 8010607 | McCormack et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 8094790 | Conway et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
| 8126133 | Everingham et al. | Feb 2012 | B1 |
| 8140441 | Cases et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
| 8175253 | Knott et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
| 8229102 | Knott et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
| 8249245 | Jay et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
| 8259924 | Korolev | Sep 2012 | B2 |
| 8295471 | Spottiswoode et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
| 8300798 | Wu et al. | Oct 2012 | B1 |
| 8306212 | Arora | Nov 2012 | B2 |
| 8359219 | Chishti et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8433597 | Chishti et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
| 8472611 | Chishti | Jun 2013 | B2 |
| 8565410 | Chishti et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
| 8634542 | Spottiswoode et al. | Jan 2014 | B2 |
| 8644490 | Stewart | Feb 2014 | B2 |
| 8670548 | Xie et al. | Mar 2014 | B2 |
| 8699694 | Chishti et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
| 8712821 | Spottiswoode | Apr 2014 | B2 |
| 8718271 | Spottiswoode | May 2014 | B2 |
| 8724797 | Chishti et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
| 8731178 | Chishti et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
| 8737595 | Chishti et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
| 8750488 | Spottiswoode et al. | Jun 2014 | B2 |
| 8761380 | Kohler et al. | Jun 2014 | B2 |
| 8781100 | Spottiswoode et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
| 8781106 | Afzal | Jul 2014 | B2 |
| 8792630 | Chishti et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
| 8824658 | Chishti | Sep 2014 | B2 |
| 8831207 | Agarwal | Sep 2014 | B1 |
| 8856869 | Brinskelle | Oct 2014 | B1 |
| 8879715 | Spottiswoode et al. | Nov 2014 | B2 |
| 8903079 | Xie et al. | Dec 2014 | B2 |
| 8913736 | Kohler et al. | Dec 2014 | B2 |
| 8929537 | Chishti et al. | Jan 2015 | B2 |
| 8938063 | Hackbarth et al. | Jan 2015 | B1 |
| 8995647 | Li et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
| 9020137 | Chishti et al. | Apr 2015 | B2 |
| 9025757 | Spottiswoode et al. | May 2015 | B2 |
| 9137372 | Conway | Sep 2015 | B2 |
| 9215323 | Chishti | Dec 2015 | B2 |
| 9277055 | Spottiswoode et al. | Mar 2016 | B2 |
| 9300802 | Chishti | Mar 2016 | B1 |
| 9426296 | Chishti et al. | Aug 2016 | B2 |
| 9692899 | Rizvi | Jun 2017 | B1 |
| 9712676 | Chishti | Jul 2017 | B1 |
| 9712679 | Chishti et al. | Jul 2017 | B2 |
| 9781269 | Chishti et al. | Oct 2017 | B2 |
| 9787841 | Chishti et al. | Oct 2017 | B2 |
| 9930180 | Kan et al. | Mar 2018 | B1 |
| 9942405 | Kan et al. | Apr 2018 | B1 |
| 9955013 | Chishti | Apr 2018 | B1 |
| RE46986 | Chishti et al. | Aug 2018 | E |
| 10116800 | Kan et al. | Oct 2018 | B1 |
| 10135987 | Chishti et al. | Nov 2018 | B1 |
| RE47201 | Chishti et al. | Jan 2019 | E |
| 10257354 | Chishti | Apr 2019 | B2 |
| 10284727 | Kan et al. | May 2019 | B2 |
| 10320984 | Chishti | Jun 2019 | B2 |
| 10326882 | Chishti | Jun 2019 | B2 |
| 10404861 | Kan et al. | Sep 2019 | B2 |
| 20010032120 | Stuart et al. | Oct 2001 | A1 |
| 20010044896 | Schwartz et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
| 20020018554 | Jensen et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
| 20020046030 | Haritsa et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020059164 | Shtivelman | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020082736 | Lech et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020110234 | Walker et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020111172 | DeWolf et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020131399 | Philonenko | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020138285 | DeCotiis et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020143599 | Nourbakhsh et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020161765 | Kundrot et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020184069 | Kosiba et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20020196845 | Richards et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030002653 | Uckun | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030059029 | Mengshoel et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030081757 | Mengshoel et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030095652 | Mengshoel et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030169870 | Stanford | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20030174830 | Boyer et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20030217016 | Pericle | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20040028211 | Culp et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040057416 | McCormack | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040096050 | Das et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040098274 | Dezonno et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040101127 | Dezonno et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040109555 | Williams | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040133434 | Szlam et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040210475 | Starnes et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040230438 | Pasquale et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040267816 | Russek | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050013428 | Walters | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050043986 | McConnell et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050047581 | Shaffer et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050047582 | Shaffer et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050071223 | Jain et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050129212 | Parker | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050135593 | Becerra et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050135596 | Zhao | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050187802 | Koeppel | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050195960 | Shaffer et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050286709 | Horton et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060098803 | Bushey et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060110052 | Finlayson | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060124113 | Roberts | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060184040 | Keller et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060222164 | Contractor et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060233346 | McIlwaine et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060262918 | Karnalkar et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060262922 | Margulies et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20070036323 | Travis | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070071222 | Flockhart et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070116240 | Foley et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070121602 | Sin et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070121829 | Tal et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070136342 | Singhai et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070153996 | Hansen | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070154007 | Bernhard | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070174111 | Anderson et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070198322 | Bourne et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070211881 | Parker-Stephen | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070219816 | Van Luchene et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070274502 | Brown | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20080002823 | Fama et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080008309 | Dezonno et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080046386 | Pieraccinii et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080065476 | Klein et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080118052 | Houmaidi et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080144803 | Jaiswal et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080152122 | Idan et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080181389 | Bourne et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080199000 | Su et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080205611 | Jordan et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080267386 | Cooper | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080273687 | Knott et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20090043670 | Johansson et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090086933 | Patel et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090190740 | Chishti et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090190743 | Spottiswoode | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090190744 | Xie et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090190745 | Xie et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090190746 | Chishti et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090190747 | Spottiswoode | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090190748 | Chishti et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090190749 | Xie et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090190750 | Xie et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090232294 | Xie et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090234710 | Belgaied Hassine et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090245493 | Chen et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090249083 | Forlenza et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090304172 | Becerra et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20090305172 | Tanaka et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20090318111 | Desai et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20090323921 | Spottiswoode et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100020959 | Spottiswoode | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100020961 | Spottiswoode | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100054431 | Jaiswal et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100054452 | Afzal | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100054453 | Stewart | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100086120 | Brussat et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100111285 | Chishti | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100111286 | Chishti | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100111287 | Xie et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100111288 | Afzal et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100142689 | Hansen et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100142698 | Spottiswoode et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100158238 | Saushkin | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100183138 | Spottiswoode et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20110022357 | Vock et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110031112 | Birang et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
| 20110069821 | Korolev et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110125048 | Causevic et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
| 20110206199 | Arora | Aug 2011 | A1 |
| 20120051536 | Chishti et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120051537 | Chishti et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120183131 | Kohler et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| 20120224680 | Spottiswoode et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120278136 | Flockhart et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20130003959 | Nishikawa et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130051545 | Ross et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130251137 | Chishti et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
| 20130287202 | Flockhart et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20140044246 | Klemm et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
| 20140079210 | Kohler et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140119531 | Tuchman et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
| 20140119533 | Spottiswoode et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
| 20140270133 | Conway et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140341370 | Li et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
| 20150055772 | Klemm et al. | Feb 2015 | A1 |
| 20150281448 | Putra et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20160080573 | Chishti | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20170013131 | Craib | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| 20170064080 | Chishti et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170064081 | Chishti et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170316438 | Konig et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
| 20180316793 | Kan et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
| 20180316794 | Kan et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
| 20190222697 | Kan et al. | Jul 2019 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 2008349500 | May 2014 | AU |
| 2009209317 | May 2014 | AU |
| 2009311534 | Aug 2014 | AU |
| 2015203175 | Jul 2015 | AU |
| 2015243001 | Nov 2015 | AU |
| 101093590 | Dec 2007 | CN |
| 102164073 | Aug 2011 | CN |
| 102390184 | Mar 2012 | CN |
| 102555536 | Jul 2012 | CN |
| 202965525 | Jun 2013 | CN |
| 203311505 | Nov 2013 | CN |
| 102301688 | May 2014 | CN |
| 102017591 | Nov 2014 | CN |
| 0493292 | Jul 1992 | EP |
| 0863651 | Sep 1998 | EP |
| 0949793 | Oct 1999 | EP |
| 1011974 | Jun 2000 | EP |
| 1032188 | Aug 2000 | EP |
| 1107557 | Jun 2001 | EP |
| 1335572 | Aug 2003 | EP |
| 2338270 | Apr 2018 | EP |
| 2339643 | Feb 2000 | GB |
| 11-098252 | Apr 1999 | JP |
| 2000-069168 | Mar 2000 | JP |
| 2000-078291 | Mar 2000 | JP |
| 2000-078292 | Mar 2000 | JP |
| 2000-092213 | Mar 2000 | JP |
| 2000-507420 | Jun 2000 | JP |
| 2000-236393 | Aug 2000 | JP |
| 2000-253154 | Sep 2000 | JP |
| 2001-292236 | Oct 2001 | JP |
| 2001-518753 | Oct 2001 | JP |
| 2002-297900 | Oct 2002 | JP |
| 3366565 | Jan 2003 | JP |
| 2003-187061 | Jul 2003 | JP |
| 2004-056517 | Feb 2004 | JP |
| 2004-227228 | Aug 2004 | JP |
| 2006-345132 | Dec 2006 | JP |
| 2007-324708 | Dec 2007 | JP |
| 2009-081627 | Apr 2009 | JP |
| 2011-511533 | Apr 2011 | JP |
| 2011-511536 | Apr 2011 | JP |
| 2012-075146 | Apr 2012 | JP |
| 5421928 | Feb 2014 | JP |
| 5631326 | Nov 2014 | JP |
| 5649575 | Jan 2015 | JP |
| 2015-514268 | May 2015 | JP |
| 2015-514371 | May 2015 | JP |
| 10-2002-0044077 | Jun 2002 | KR |
| 10-2013-0099554 | Sep 2013 | KR |
| 316118 | Dec 2013 | MX |
| 322251 | Jul 2014 | MX |
| 587100 | Oct 2013 | NZ |
| 587101 | Oct 2013 | NZ |
| 591486 | Jan 2014 | NZ |
| 592781 | Mar 2014 | NZ |
| 1-2010-501704 | Feb 2014 | PH |
| 1-2010-501705 | Feb 2015 | PH |
| 1-2011-500868 | Jun 2015 | PH |
| WO-199917517 | Apr 1999 | WO |
| WO-0070849 | Nov 2000 | WO |
| WO-2001063894 | Aug 2001 | WO |
| WO-2006124113 | Nov 2006 | WO |
| WO-2009097018 | Aug 2009 | WO |
| WO-2009097210 | Aug 2009 | WO |
| WO-2010053701 | May 2010 | WO |
| WO-2011081514 | Jul 2011 | WO |
| WO-2013148453 | Oct 2013 | WO |
| WO-2015019806 | Feb 2015 | WO |
| WO-2016048290 | Mar 2016 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Afiniti, “Afiniti® Enterprise Behavioral Pairing™ Improves Contact Center Performance,” White Paper, retrieved online from URL: <http://www.afinitit, com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Afiniti_White-Paper_Web-Email.pdf> 2016, (11 pages). |
| Anonymous, (2006) “Performance Based Routing in Profit Call Centers,” The Decision Makers' Direct, located at www.decisioncraft.com, Issue Jun. 2002, (3 pages). |
| Chen, G., et al., “Enhanced Locality Sensitive Clustering in High Dimensional Space”, Transactions on Electrical and Electronic Materials, vol. 15, No. 3, Jun. 25, 2014, pp. 125-129 (5 pages). |
| Cleveland, William S., “Robust Locally Weighted Regression and Smoothing Scatterplots,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 74, No. 368, pp. 829-836 (Dec. 1979). |
| Cormen, T.H., et al., “Introduction to Algorithms”, Third Edition, Chapter 26 and 29, 2009, (116 pages). |
| Gans, N. et al., “Telephone Call Centers: Tutorial, Review and Research Prospects,” Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, vol. 5, No. 2, 2003, pp. 79-141, (84 pages). |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability and Written Opinion issued in connection with PCT/US2009/066254 dated Jun. 14, 2011, (6 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion issued by the European Patent Office as International Searching Authority for PCT/IB2016/001762 dated Feb. 20, 2017, (15 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion issued by the European Patent Office as International Searching Authority for PCT/IB2016/001776 dated Mar. 3, 2017, (16 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion issued by the European Patent Office as International Searching Authority for PCT/IB2017/000570 dated Jun. 30, 2017, (13 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion issued by the European Patent Office as International Searching Authority for PCT/IB2018/000434 dated Jun. 20, 2018, (14 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion issued in connection with PCT/IB2018/000886 dated Dec. 4, 2018, (13 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion issued in connection with PCT/IB2018/000907 dated Nov. 26, 2018, (11 pages). |
| International Search Report issued in connection with PCT/US2009/054352 dated Mar. 12, 2010, (5 pages). |
| International Search Report issued in connection with PCT/US2008/077042 dated Mar. 13, 2009, (3 pages). |
| International Search Report issued in connection with PCT/US2009/031611 dated Jun. 3, 2009, (5 pages). |
| International Search Report issued in connection with PCT/US2009/061537 dated Jun. 7, 2010, (5 pages). |
| International Search Report issued in connection with PCT/US2009/066254 dated Feb. 24, 2010, (4 pages). |
| International Search Report issued in connection with PCT/US2013/033261 dated Jun. 14, 2013, (3 pages). |
| International Search Report issued in connection with PCT/US2013/033265 dated Jul. 9, 2013, (2 pages). |
| International Search Report issued in connection with PCT/US2013/033268 dated May 31, 2013, (2 pages). |
| Ioannis Ntzoufras “Bayesian Modeling Using Winbugs An Introduction”, Department of Statistics, Athens University of Economics and Business, Wiley-Interscience, A John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Publication, Chapter 5, Jan. 1, 2007, pp. 155-220 (67 pages). |
| Koole, G. et al., “An Overview of Routing and Staffing Algorithms in Multi-Skill Customer Contact Centers,” Manuscript, Mar. 6, 2006, (42 pages). |
| Koole, G., “Performance Analysis and Optimization in Customer Contact Centers,” Proceedings of the Quantitative Evaluation of Systems, First International Conference, Sep. 27-30, 2004, (4 pages). |
| Nocedal, J. and Wright, S. J., “Numerical Optimization,” Chapter 16 Quadratic Programming, 2006, pp. 448-496 (50 pages). |
| Ntzoufras, “Bayesian Modeling Using Winbugs”. Wiley Interscience, Chapter 5, Normal Regression Models, Oct. 18, 2007, Redacted version, pp. 155-220 (67 pages). |
| Press, W. H. and Rybicki, G. B., “Fast Algorithm for Spectral Analysis of Unevenly Sampled Data,” The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 338, Mar. 1, 1989, pp. 277-280 (4 pages). |
| Riedmiller, M. et al., “A Direct Adaptive Method for Faster Backpropagation Learning: The RPROP Algorithm,” 1993 IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks, San Francisco, CA, Mar. 28-Apr. 1, 1993, 1:586-591 (8 pages). |
| Stanley et al., “Improving Call Center Operations Using Performance-Based Routing Strategies,” California Journal of Operations Management, 6(1), 24-32, Feb. 2008; retrieved from http://userwww.sfsu.edu/saltzman/Publist.html (9 pages). |
| Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority issued in connection with PCT/US2009/054352 dated Mar. 12, 2010, (5 pages). |
| Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority issued in connection with PCT/US2008/077042 dated Mar. 13, 2009, (6 pages). |
| Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority issued in connection with PCT/US2009/031611 dated Jun. 3, 2009, (7 pages). |
| Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority issued in connection with PCT/US2009/061537 dated Jun. 7, 2010, (10 pages). |
| Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority issued in connection with PCT/US2009/066254 dated Feb. 24, 2010, (5 pages). |
| Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority issued in connection with PCT/US2013/033261 dated Jun. 14, 2013, (7 pages). |
| Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority issued in connection with PCT/US2013/033265 dated Jul. 9, 2013, (7 pages). |
| Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority issued in connection with PCT/US2013/033268 dated May 31, 2013, (7 pages). |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20210240530 A1 | Aug 2021 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 62970526 | Feb 2020 | US |
