This disclosure generally relates to contact centers and, more particularly, to techniques for benchmarking performance in a contact center system.
A typical contact center algorithmically assigns contacts arriving at the contact center to agents available to handle those contacts. At times, the contact center may have agents available and waiting for assignment to inbound or outbound contacts (e.g., telephone calls, Internet chat sessions, email). At other times, the contact center may have contacts waiting in one or more queues for an agent to become available for assignment.
In some typical contact centers, contacts are assigned to agents ordered based on the time when those agents became available, and agents are assigned to contacts ordered based on time of arrival. This strategy may be referred to as a “first-in, first-out”, “FIFO”, or “round-robin” strategy.
Some contact centers may use a “performance based routing” or “PBR” approach to ordering the queue of available agents or, occasionally, contacts. PBR ordering strategies attempt to maximize the expected outcome of each contact-agent interaction but do so typically without regard for uniformly utilizing agents in a contact center.
When a contact center changes from using one type of pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO) to another type of pairing strategy (e.g., PBR), some agents may be available to receive a contact, while other agents may be on a call. If the average agent performance over time is unbalanced, the overall performance of one type of pairing strategy may be unfairly influenced by the other type of pairing strategy.
In view of the foregoing, it may be understood that there may be a need for a system that enables benchmarking contact center system performance including transition management of alternative routing strategies to detect and account for unbalanced average agent performance among alternative pairing strategies.
Techniques for benchmarking performance in a contact center system are disclosed. In one particular embodiment, the techniques may be realized as a method for benchmarking contact center system performance comprising cycling, by at least one computer processor configured to perform contact center operations, between a first contact-agent pairing strategy and a second contact-agent pairing strategy for pairing contacts with agents in the contact center system, determining, by the at least one computer processor, an agent-utilization bias in the first contact-agent pairing strategy comprising a difference between a first agent utilization of the first contact-agent pairing strategy and a balanced agent utilization, and determining, by the at least one computer processor, a relative performance of the second contact-agent pairing strategy compared to the first contact-agent pairing strategy based on the agent-utilization bias in the first contact-agent pairing strategy.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the method may further include adjusting, by the at least one computer processor, a target agent utilization of the second contact-agent pairing strategy to reduce the agent-utilization bias in the first contact-agent pairing strategy.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the method may further include determining, by the at least one computer processor, an average available-agent performance of a plurality of agents during at least one transition from the first contact-agent pairing strategy to the second contact-agent pairing strategy.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the method may further include determining, by the at least one computer processor, an average availability of at least one of a plurality of agents during at least one transition from the first contact-agent pairing strategy to the second contact-agent pairing strategy.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the method may further include outputting, by the at least one computer processor, a transition management report comprising the agent-utilization bias of the first contact-agent pairing strategy.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the first contact-agent pairing strategy may be a performance-based routing strategy.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the second contact-agent pairing strategy may be a behavioral pairing strategy.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the second contact-agent pairing strategy may be a hybrid behavioral pairing strategy, and the hybrid behavioral pairing strategy may be biased toward a performance-based routing strategy.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the method may further include adjusting, by the at least one computer processor, at least one parameter of the second contact-agent pairing strategy.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the at least one parameter comprises a Kappa parameter for a hybrid behavioral pairing strategy.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the first contact-agent pairing strategy may target an unbalanced agent utilization, and the second contact-agent pairing strategy may target the balanced agent utilization.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the target utilization of the second contact-agent pairing strategy may be adjusted at least once at one or more points in time between a transition from the first to the second contact-agent pairing strategy and a subsequent transition from the second to the first contact-agent pairing strategy.
In another particular embodiment, the techniques may be realized as a system for benchmarking performance in a contact center system comprising at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform the above-described method.
In another particular embodiment, the techniques may be realized as an article of manufacture for benchmarking performance in a contact center 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 processor and thereby cause the at least one processor to operate so as to perform the above-described method.
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.
In order 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 contact center algorithmically assigns contacts arriving at the contact center to agents available to handle those contacts. At times, the contact center may have agents available and waiting for assignment to inbound or outbound contacts (e.g., telephone calls, Internet chat sessions, email). At other times, the contact center may have contacts waiting in one or more queues for an agent to become available for assignment.
In some typical contact centers, contacts are assigned to agents ordered based on the time when those agents became available, and agents are assigned to contacts ordered based on time of arrival. This strategy may be referred to as a “first-in, first-out”, “FIFO”, or “round-robin” strategy. For example, a longest-available agent pairing strategy preferably selects the available agent who has been available for the longest time.
Some contact centers may use a “performance based routing” or “PBR” approach to ordering the queue of available agents or, occasionally, contacts. PBR ordering strategies attempt to maximize the expected outcome of each contact-agent interaction but do so typically without regard for uniformly utilizing agents in a contact center. Some variants of PBR may include a highest-performing-agent pairing strategy, preferably selecting the available agent with the highest performance, or a highest-performing-agent-for-contact-type pairing strategy, preferably selecting the available agent with the highest performance for the type of contact being paired.
For yet another example, some contact centers may use a “behavioral pairing” or “BP” strategy, under which contacts and agents may be deliberately (preferentially) paired in a fashion that enables the assignment of subsequent contact-agent pairs such that when the benefits of all the assignments under a BP strategy are totaled they may exceed those of FIFO and PBR strategies. BP is designed to encourage balanced utilization of agents within a skill queue while nevertheless simultaneously improving overall contact center performance beyond what FIFO or PBR methods will allow. This is a remarkable achievement inasmuch as BP acts on the same calls and same agents as FIFO or PBR methods, utilizes agents approximately evenly as FIFO provides, and yet improves overall contact center performance. BP is described in, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 9,300,802, which is incorporated by reference herein. Additional information about these and other features regarding the pairing or matching modules (sometimes also referred to as “SATMAP”, “routing system”, “routing engine”, etc.) is described in, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 8,879,715, which is incorporated by reference herein.
In some embodiments, a contact center may switch (or “cycle”) periodically among at least two different pairing strategies (e.g., between FIFO and PBR; between PBR and BP; among FIFO, PBR, and BP). Additionally, the outcome of each contact-agent interaction may be recorded along with an identification of which pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO, PBR, or BP) had been used to assign that particular contact-agent pair. By tracking which interactions produced which results, the contact center may measure the performance attributable to a first strategy (e.g., FIFO) and the performance attributable to a second strategy (e.g., PBR). In this way, the relative performance of one strategy may be benchmarked against the other. The contact center may, over many periods of switching between different pairing strategies, more reliably attribute performance gain to one strategy or the other. Additional information about these and other features regarding benchmarking pairing strategies is described in, for example, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/131,915, filed Apr. 20, 2016.
When a contact center changes from using one type of pairing strategy (e.g., PBR) to another type of pairing strategy (e.g., BP), some agents may be available to receive a contact, while other agents may be interacting with a contact (e.g., on a call). If the average agent performance at transitions over time is unbalanced, the overall performance of one type of pairing strategy may be unfairly influenced by the other type of pairing strategy. For example, when a contact center pairs contacts and agents using PBR, high-performing agents are more likely to be busy interacting with a contact, while low-performing agents are more likely to be idle. Thus, at transitions from PBR to another pairing strategy such as BP, the average performance of available agents at transitions over time is likely to be below the average performance of all of the agents including both the available agents and the busy agents.
The central switch 110 may not be necessary if there is only one contact center, or if there is only one PBX/ACD routing component, in the contact center system 100. If more than one contact center is part of the contact center system 100, each contact center may include at least one contact center switch (e.g., contact center switches 120A and 120B). The contact center switches 120A and 120B may be communicatively coupled to the central switch 110.
Each contact center switch for each contact center may be communicatively coupled to a plurality (or “pool”) of agents. Each contact center 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 contact, or the logged-in agent may be unavailable for any of a number of reasons, such as being connected to another contact, performing certain post-call functions such as logging information about the call, or taking a break.
In the example of
The contact center system 100 may also be communicatively coupled to an integrated service from, for example, a third party vendor. In the example of
A contact center may include multiple pairing modules (e.g., a BP module and a FIFO module) (not shown), and one or more pairing modules may be provided by one or more different vendors. In some embodiments, one or more pairing modules may be components of transition management module 140 or one or more switches such as central switch 110 or contact center switches 120A and 120B. In some embodiments, a transition management module 140 may determine which pairing module may handle pairing for a particular contact. For example, the transition management module 140 may alternate between enabling pairing via the BP module and enabling pairing with the FIFO module. In other embodiments, one pairing module (e.g., the BP module) may be configured to emulate other pairing strategies. For example, a transition management module 140, or a transition management component integrated with BP components in the BP module, may determine whether the BP module may use BP pairing or emulated FIFO pairing for a particular contact. In this case, “BP on” may refer to times when the BP module is applying the BP pairing strategy, and “BP off” may refer to other times when the BP module is applying a different pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO).
In some embodiments, regardless of whether pairing strategies are handled by separate modules, or if some pairing strategies are emulated within a single pairing module, the single pairing module may be configured to monitor and store information about pairings made under any or all pairing strategies. For example, a BP module may observe and record data about FIFO pairings made by a FIFO module, or the BP module may observe and record data about emulated FIFO pairings made by a BP module operating in FIFO emulation mode.
Embodiments of the present disclosure are not limited to benchmarking transition management of only two pairing strategies. Instead, benchmarking transition management may be performed for two or more pairing strategies (e.g., benchmarking transition management of FIFO, PBR, and BP).
Agent transition table 200 shows five transitions labeled “201”, “202”, “203”, “204”, and “205”. In some embodiments, each transition may represent a point in time at which a contact center switches from one pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO) to another pairing strategy (e.g., BP). Transitions may occur multiple times per hour (e.g., every 10 minutes, every 15 minutes, every 30 minutes) or more or less frequently throughout a day, week, month, year, etc. In some embodiments, transitions may be identified by the time of day at which the transition occurred. For example, transition 201 may have occurred at time 9:15 AM, transition 202 may have occurred at time 9:45 AM, etc.
At transition 201, agents Alice and Bob are not available, as indicated by shaded cells. For example, Alice and Bob may be interacting with a contact, or they may be otherwise occupied with a post-interaction task such as logging a sale or filing a customer service report. Meanwhile, agents Charlie and Donna are idle or otherwise available to be connected to a contact, as indicated by unshaded cells.
Similarly, at transition 202, agents Charlie and Donna are busy, and agents Alice and Bob are available. At transition 203, agents Alice and Charlie are busy, and agents Bob and Donna are available. At transition 204, agents Bob and Donna are busy, and agents Alice and Charlie are available. At transition 205, agents Bob and Charlie are busy, and agents Alice and Donna are available.
At any single transition, even pairing strategies that target balanced agent utilization (e.g., FIFO and BP, but not PBR) may appear to have skewed utilization at transitions. For example, if Alice has a normalized performance rating of 80, Bob a rating of 60, Charlie a rating of 40, and Donna a rating of 20, the average performance of all agents is 50. However, the average performance of the available agents at transition 201 (i.e., Charlie and Donna) is below average at 30. The average performance of the available agents at transition 202 is above average at 70. The average performance of the available agents at transition 203 is below average at 40. The average performance of the available agents at transition 204 is above average at 60.
At some transitions, even pairing strategies that target unbalanced agent utilization (e.g., PBR) may appear to have balanced utilization at transitions. For example, at transition 205, the average performance of the available agents (i.e., Alice and Donna) is 50.
Despite variance in average performance of available agents at any single transition, the average performance of available agents at multiple transitions over time (e.g., over the course of a day) may reflect the statistically expected utilization of a given pairing strategy. Agent transition table 200 shows five transitions 201-205, which, in some embodiments, may not be a statistically significant number of transitions. Nevertheless, for illustrative purposes, the average available agent performance over the course of the five transitions 201-205 is (30+70+40+60+50)/5=50. In this example, the average available agent performance at the transitions over the course of five transitions 201-205 was balanced.
In some embodiments, in addition to or instead of determining the average performance of available agents over one or more transitions, the average availability of individual agents may also be determined and outputted. For example, in agent transition table 200, the average availability of each agent over each transition 201-205 is 60% for Alice (3 of 5 transitions), 40% for Bob (2 of 5 transitions), 40% for Charlie (2 of 5 transitions), and 60% for Donna (4 of 5 transitions). For pairing strategies that target balanced agent utilization (e.g., FIFO or BP), it may be statistically likely for each agent to be available approximately the same number of times or same proportion of transitions. In this simplified example, which depicts only five transitions 201-205, the average availability of each agent varies between 40% and 60%. However, over time, the average availability of each agent may be statistically likely to converge to the same percentage. For example, after 100 transitions, the average availability of every agent may approximately the same, e.g., 50%, 55%, 60%, etc.
The average performance of available agents is 30 at transition 301, 40 at transition 302, 30 at transition 303, 20 at transition 304, and 40 at transition 305. The average performance of available agents over the course of five transitions 301-305 is unbalanced at (30+40+30+20+40)/5=32. The extent to which the average performance of available agents over time may show a statistically significant amount of skew in agent utilization that could “pollute”, bias, or otherwise influence the effectiveness of alternative pairing strategies following each transition, resulting in potentially unfair benchmarking measurements.
In some embodiments, in addition to or instead of determining the average performance of available agents over one or more transitions, the average availability of individual agents may also be determined and outputted. For example, in agent transition table 300, the average availability of each agent over each transition 301-305 is 0% for Alice (0 of 5 transitions), 40% for Bob (2 of 5 transitions), 60% for Charlie (3 of 5 transitions), and 100% for Donna (5 of 5 transitions). For pairing strategies that target unbalanced agent utilization (e.g., PBR), it may be statistically likely for some agents (e.g., lower-performing agents) to be available significantly more often than other agents (e.g., higher-performing agents). Even in this simplified example, which depicts only five transitions 501-505, the average availability of each agent varies significantly between 0% and 100%. Over time, the statistical significance of the varying average availability of each agent may be further confirmed. Here, an unbalanced pairing strategy such as PBR always or almost always hands off lower-performing agents to the next pairing strategy (e.g., BP or FIFO), while the higher-performing agents are never or almost never handed off. As explained above in reference to average agent quality at one or more transitions, the extent to which the average availability of agents over time may show a statistically significant amount of skew in agent utilization that could “pollute”, bias, or otherwise influence the effectiveness of alternative pairing strategies following each transition, resulting in potentially unfair benchmarking measurements.
When benchmarking among multiple pairing strategies, it is possible for a first pairing strategy (e.g., PBR) to “pollute” or otherwise bias the performance of a second pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO or BP). At each transition from PBR to BP, the average performance of available agents may be significantly below the overall average performance of all agents assigned to the queue (i.e., unbalanced). This “suppressed” agent pool at the beginning of a BP or FIFO cycle may weaken the overall performance of BP or FIFO for that cycle.
Conversely, at each transition from BP or FIFO to PBR, the average performance of available agents may be similar or equal to the overall average performance of all agents assigned to the queue (i.e., balanced). This balanced agent pool at the beginning of each PBR cycle may enhance the overall performance of PBR for that cycle, because even a balanced agent pool may be better than the typical agent pool that PBR causes.
Because each PBR cycle may leave the agent pool more “polluted” (unbalanced) than when it received it, and each BP or FIFO cycle may leave the agent pool “cleaner” (balanced) than when it received it, some techniques for benchmarking PBR against BP or FIFO may give the appearance that BP or FIFO are performing worse than they otherwise would be if the PBR cycles were not polluting their available agent pools at the beginning of each cycle. Thus, it may be helpful to compare the average performance of available agents at the beginning (“front half”) of a cycle with the average performance of available agents at the end (“back half”) of the cycle.
An average difference of 0 does not necessarily imply that both pairing strategies are balanced (e.g., average performance of available agents of approximately 50). For example, if the first pairing strategy is PBR_A with an average available agent performance of 25, and the second pairing strategy is PBR_B with an average available agent performance of 25, the difference will still be 0. From a benchmarking perspective, it may be acceptable for both pairing strategies to be unbalanced if the extent to which each is unbalanced is approximately the same. In this way, each pairing strategy leaves an agent pool approximately as badly as it found it, and neither pairing strategy is polluting the other.
An average difference significantly above 25 does not necessarily imply that either of the pairing strategies is balanced (e.g., average performance of available agents of approximately 50). For example, if the first pairing strategy is PBR_A with an average available agent performance of 25, and the second pairing strategy is PBR_B with an average available agent performance of 0, the difference will still be 25. The PBR_B pairing strategy is still polluting the benchmark, causing PBR_A to perform worse than it would in the absence of cycling with PBR_B, and causing PBR_B to perform better than it would in the absence of cycling with PBR_A.
At block 810, a first average performance of available agents at transitions from the first pairing strategy (e.g., BP) to the second pairing strategy (e.g., PBR) over time may be determined, based on determinations of available agents and their relative or otherwise normalized performance for each transition. The first average performance may also be considered the “front-half” measurement of the second pairing strategy for the time period.
At block 820, in some embodiments, a second average performance of available agents at transitions from the second pairing strategy (e.g., PBR) to the first pairing strategy (e.g., BP) over time may be determined, based on determinations of available agents and their relative or otherwise normalized performance for each transition. The second average performance may also be considered the “back-half” measurement of the second pairing strategy for the time period.
At block 830, in some embodiments, an average performance difference between the first and second average performance may be determined. If the difference equals or approximates zero, it may be determined that there is no significant difference between the average performance of available agents received from or provided to the first pairing strategy during the measured time period. If the difference is greater than zero, it may be determined that the average performance of available agents provided by the first pairing strategy (e.g., BP) is higher than the average performance of available agents provided by the second pairing strategy (e.g., PBR), indicating that the second pairing strategy may be polluting the available agent pool and the benchmark.
At block 840, in some embodiments, a transition management report may be generated. In some embodiments, the transition management report may include the first average performance difference determined at block 810, the second average performance difference determined at block 820, the average performance difference determined at block 840, or any combination thereof. The data may be presented in a variety of formats, including but not limited to agent transition tables (e.g., agent transition tables 200 and 300 (
At block 850, in some embodiments, at least one parameter of the first or second pairing strategy may be adjusted to, for example, reduce the average performance difference determined at block 830. Reducing or eliminating a non-zero average performance difference may reduce or eliminate the extent to which one pairing strategy suppresses the performance or pollutes the benchmark of a second pairing strategy.
For example, in a contact center system cycling between PBR and BP, PBR is likely to suppress a configuration of BP that targets a uniform utilization of agents. A variety of techniques allow for BP to target a non-uniform utilization of agents. For example, adjusting a “Kappa” parameter may bias BP toward PBR with respect to agent utilization. Kappa is described in, e.g., U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/956,086, which is incorporated by reference herein.
If Kappa is sufficiently high, it may be possible to eliminate benchmark suppression or pollution (e.g., an average performance difference of zero). However, in some environments, a high Kappa value may reduce overall BP performance. In these situations, it may be desirable to compensate for PBR benchmark pollution with have a high initial Kappa value following a transition from PBR to BP, and reduce or eliminate the Kappa adjustment (e.g., Kappa reduction from 1.5 to 1.0) over the course of the first 3 minutes, 10 minutes, etc. The rate of such a “Kappa fade” may be adjusted to balance benchmark suppression from PBR with overall performance at the front-half of a BP cycle.
Similarly, it may be desirable to have a high Kappa value prior to a transition from BP to PBR, producing or increasing a Kappa adjustment (e.g., Kappa increase from 1.0 to 1.5) over the course of the last 3 minutes, 10 minutes, etc. The rate of such a “reverse Kappa fade” may be adjusted to balance benchmark suppression from PBR with overall performance at the back-half of a BP cycle.
In contact center systems that cycle between FIFO and BP, the average performance difference may normally be zero, as both FIFO and BP target balanced agent utilization. However, in some environments, it may be desirable or optimal for BP to target an unbalanced agent utilization (e.g., Kappa value greater than 1.0). If BP targets an unbalanced agent utilization, the average performance difference as compared to FIFO may be non-zero, indicating a suppressed or polluted benchmark. In these situations, it may be desirable to reduce or eliminate a Kappa adjustment (e.g., Kappa decrease from 1.5 to 1.0) over the course of the last 3 minutes, 10 minutes, etc. The rate of such a “Kappa fade” may be adjusted to reduce the average performance difference between BP and FIFO back to zero while balancing the optimization of overall BP performance. Following block 850, benchmarking transition management method 800 may end. In some embodiments, benchmarking transition management method 800 may return to block 810. In some embodiments, various steps may be optional, performed in a different order, or performed in parallel with other steps. For example, the adjustment of at least one parameter at block 850 may be optional, or it may be performed prior to, or simultaneously with, the generation of a transition management report at block 840.
At this point it should be noted that benchmarking performance in a contact center system 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 transition management module or similar or related circuitry for implementing the functions associated with benchmarking performance in a contact center system 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 benchmarking performance in a contact center system 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. Accordingly, the claims set forth below should be construed in view of the full breadth and spirit of the present disclosure as described herein.
This patent application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/745,217, filed on May 16, 2022, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/525,468, filed on Nov. 12, 2021, now U.S. Pat. No. 11,363,142, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/093,076, filed on Nov. 9, 2020, now U.S. Pat. No. 11,356,556, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/198,419, filed on Nov. 21, 2018, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,834,259, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/176,899, filed Jun. 8, 2016, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,142,473, each of 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 |
5590188 | Crockett | Dec 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 |
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 |
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 |
6639982 | Stuart 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 et al. | Mar 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 et al. | 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 |
7398224 | Cooper | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7593521 | Becerra et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7676034 | Wu et al. | Mar 2010 | B1 |
7725339 | Aykir | 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 |
8295471 | Spottiswoode et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8300798 | Wu et al. | Oct 2012 | B1 |
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 |
8811597 | Hackbarth et al. | Aug 2014 | B1 |
8824658 | Chishti | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8831207 | Agarwal | Sep 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 |
8995647 | Li et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
9020137 | Chishti et al. | Apr 2015 | B2 |
9025757 | Spottiswoode et al. | May 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 |
9712676 | Chishti | Jul 2017 | B1 |
9712679 | Chishti et al. | Jul 2017 | B2 |
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 |
10284727 | Kan et al. | May 2019 | B2 |
10404861 | Kan et al. | Sep 2019 | B2 |
20010032120 | Stuart et al. | Oct 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 | 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 |
20040202308 | Baggenstoss et al. | Oct 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 |
20060173724 | Trefler et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060184040 | Keller et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060222164 | Contractor et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060233346 | McIlwaine et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060256955 | Laughlin et al. | Nov 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 |
20080112557 | Ricketts | May 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 | 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 | 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 |
20090304172 | Becerra 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 |
20100080120 | Bejerano et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100086120 | Brussat | 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 |
20100142698 | Spottiswoode et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100158238 | Saushkin | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100183138 | Spottiswoode et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100303225 | Shashkov | Dec 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 |
20110194684 | Ristock et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20120051536 | Chishti et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120051537 | Chishti et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120224680 | Spottiswoode et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120278136 | Flockhart et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120300920 | Fagundes et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20130003959 | Nishikawa et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130136248 | Kaiser-Nyman et al. | May 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 |
20140211933 | Vymenets et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140341370 | Li | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140355748 | Conway et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20150055772 | Klemm et al. | Feb 2015 | A1 |
20150071428 | Sobus et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150131793 | Riefel | May 2015 | A1 |
20150131915 | Lin et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
20150178660 | Nowak | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150281448 | Putra et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20160036983 | Korolev | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160080573 | Chishti | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160112568 | Nowak et al. | Apr 2016 | A1 |
20170064080 | Chishti et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170064081 | Chishti et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170111509 | McGann | Apr 2017 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2008349500 | May 2014 | AU |
2009209317 | May 2014 | AU |
2009311534 | Aug 2014 | AU |
2015203175 | Jul 2015 | AU |
101645987 | Feb 2010 | CN |
102256023 | Nov 2011 | CN |
102301688 | May 2014 | CN |
102017591 | Nov 2014 | CN |
0493292 | Jul 1992 | EP |
0949793 | Oct 1999 | EP |
1032188 | Aug 2000 | EP |
1335572 | Aug 2003 | EP |
3636MUM2011 | Jan 2013 | IN |
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 |
2012-507976 | Mar 2012 | JP |
5421928 | Feb 2014 | JP |
5631326 | Nov 2014 | JP |
5649575 | Jan 2015 | JP |
2015-514268 | May 2015 | JP |
2015-514371 | May 2015 | JP |
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 |
WO-199917517 | Apr 1999 | WO |
WO-2001063894 | Aug 2001 | WO |
WO-2006124113 | Nov 2006 | WO |
WO-2009097018 | Aug 2009 | WO |
WO-2010053701 | May 2010 | WO |
WO-2011081514 | Jul 2011 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Afiniti, “Afiniti® Enterprise Behavioral Pairing ™ Improves Contact Center Performance,” White Paper, retreived online from URL: <http://www.afinitit,com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Afiniti_White-Paper_Web-Email.pdf> 11 pages (2016). |
Anonymous. (2006) “Performance Based Routing in Profit Call Centers,” The Decision Makers' Direct, located at www.decisioncraft.com, Issue Jun. 2002 (3 pages). |
Canadian Office Action issued in Canadian Patent Application No. 2713526, dated Oct. 25, 2016, 7 pages. |
Cleveland, William S., “Robust Locally Weighted Regression and Smoothing Scatterplots,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 74, No. 368, Dec. 1979, pp. 829-836 (8 pages). |
Cormen, T. H., et al., “Introduction to Algorithms,” 3rd Edition, Chapter 26 Maximum Flow, pp. 708-768 and Chapter 29 Linear Programming, pp. 843-897 (2009). |
Extended European Search Report issued by the European Patent Office for European Application No. 18168620.5 dated Jun. 12, 2018 (9 pages). |
Extended European Search Report issued by the European Patent Office for European Patent Application No. 17154781.3 dated May 4, 2017, (7 pages). |
Extended European Search Report issued by the European Patent Office for European Patent Application No. 17171761.4 dated Aug. 30, 2017, (8 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 issued in connection with PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/066254 mailed Jun. 14, 2011 (6 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion issued by the European Patent Office as International Searching Authority for International Application No. 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 International Application No. 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 International Application No. PCT/IB2016/001871 dated Mar. 17, 2017 (13 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion issued by the European Patent Office as International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/IB2017/000570 dated Jun. 30, 2017 (13 pages). |
International Search Report issued in connection with International Application No. PCT/US13/33268 mailed May 31, 2013 (2 pages). |
International Search Report issued in connection with PCT Application No. PCT/US/2009/054352 mailed Mar. 12, 2010, 5 pages. |
International Search Report issued in connection with PCT Application No. PCT/US2008/077042 mailed Mar. 13, 2009 (3 pages). |
International Search Report issued in connection with PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/031611 mailed Jun. 3, 2009 (5 pages). |
International Search Report issued in connection with PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/066254 mailed Feb. 24, 2010 (4 pages). |
International Search Report issued in connection with PCT/US2009/061537 mailed Jun. 7, 2010 (5 pages). |
International Search Report issued in connection with PCT/US2013/033261 mailed Jun. 14, 2013 (3 pages). |
International Search Report issued in connection with PCT/US2013/33265 mailed Jul. 9, 2013 (2 pages). |
Ioannis Ntzoufras “Bayesian Modeling Using Winbugs An Introduction”, Department of Statistices, Athens University of Economics and Business, Wiley-Interscience, A John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Publication, Chapter 5, Jan. 1, 2007, pp. 155-220 (67 pages). |
Japanese Office Action issued by the Japan Patent Office for Application No. 2015-503396 dated Jun. 29, 2016 (7 pages). |
Japanese Office Action issued by the Japan Patent Office for Japanese Application No. 2016-159338 dated Oct. 11, 2017 (12 pages). |
Japanese Office Action issued by the Japanese Patent Office for Japanese Application No. 2016-159338 dated Oct. 11, 2017 (12 pages). |
Japanese Office Action issued by the Japanese Patent Office for Japanese Application No. 2016-189126 dated Oct. 19, 2017 (24 pages). |
Koole, G. (2004). “Performance Analysis and Optimization in Customer Contact Centers,” Proceedings of the Quantitative Evaluation of Systems, First International Conference, Sep. 27- 30, 2004 (4 pages). |
Koole, G. et al. (Mar. 6, 2006). “An Overview of Routing and Staffing Algorithms in Multi-Skill Customer Contact Centers,” Manuscript, 42 pages. |
Nocedal, J. and Wright, S. J., “Numerical Optimization,” Chapter 16 Quadratic Programming, pp. 448-496 (2006) 50 pages. |
Notice of Reasons for Rejection issued by the Japan Patent Office for Japanese Application No. 2018-528305 dated Oct. 17, 2018 (6 pages). |
Notice of Reasons for Rejection issued by the Japan Patent Office for Japanese Application No. 2018-528314 dated Oct. 17, 2018 (5 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. (1993). “A Direct Adaptive Method for Faster Back Propagation Learning: The RPROP Algorithm,” 1993 IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks, San Francisco, CA, Mar. 28-Apr. 1, 1993, 1:586-591. |
Stanley et al., “Improving call center operations using performance-based routing strategies,” Calif. Journal of Operations Management, 6(1), 24-32, Feb. 2008; retrieved from http://userwww.sfsu.edu/saltzman/Publist.html. |
Subsequent Substantive Examination Report issued in connection with Philippines Application No. 1-2010-501705 mailed Jul. 14, 2014 (1 page). |
Substantive Examination Report issued in connection with Philippines Application No. 1/2011/500868 dated May 2, 2014 (1 page). |
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority issued in connection with International Application No. PCT/US13/33268 mailed May 31, 2013, 7 pages. |
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority issued in connection with PCT Application No. PCT/US/2009/054352 mailed Mar. 12, 2010, 5 pages. |
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority issued in connection with PCT Application No. PCT/US2008/077042 mailed Mar. 13, 2009, 6 pages. |
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority issued in connection with PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/031611 mailed Jun. 3, 2009, 7 pages. |
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority issued in connection with PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/066254 mailed Feb. 24, 2010, 5 pages. |
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority issued in connection with PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/066254 mailed Feb. 4, 2010, 5 pages. |
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority issued in connection with PCT/US2009/061537 mailed Jun. 7, 2010, 10 pages. |
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority issued in connection with PCT/US2013/033261 mailed Jun. 14, 2013, 7 pages. |
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority issued in connection with PCT/US2013/33265 mailed Jul. 9, 2013, 7 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20230283717 A1 | Sep 2023 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 17745217 | May 2022 | US |
Child | 18197482 | US | |
Parent | 17525468 | Nov 2021 | US |
Child | 17745217 | US | |
Parent | 17093076 | Nov 2020 | US |
Child | 17525468 | US | |
Parent | 16198419 | Nov 2018 | US |
Child | 17093076 | US | |
Parent | 15176899 | Jun 2016 | US |
Child | 16198419 | US |