Patent Grant
12307292
The present disclosure generally relates to task assignment systems and, more particularly, to techniques for 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.
Some task assignment systems prioritize some types of tasks ahead of other types of tasks. For example, some tasks may be high-priority tasks, while other tasks are low-priority tasks. Under a FIFO strategy, high-priority tasks will be assigned ahead of low-priority tasks.
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 improving overall task assignment system performance potentially beyond what FIFO or PBR methods achieve in practice.
Thus, it may be understood that there may be a need for techniques that enable a task assignment system to use high-performing pairing strategies (e.g., BP strategies) that improve upon traditional pairing strategies.
Techniques for 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 pairing in a task assignment system with an external pairing system 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, first information that identifies one or more tasks waiting for assignment and one or more agents available for assignment; transmitting, by the at least one computer processor, to the external pairing system over the application programming interface, a pairing request; determining, by the at least one computer processor, an initial timeout window to wait for the external pairing system to respond to the pairing request; receiving, by the at least one computer processor, from the external pairing system, at a first time within the initial timeout window, an extension request that includes an instruction to extend the initial timeout window; extending, by the at least one computer processor, the initial timeout window in response to the receiving the extension request; and receiving, by the at least one computer processor, from the external pairing system, at a second time within the extended timeout window, a pairing response that includes a selected pairing between the one or more tasks and the one or more agents.
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 selected pairing may be selected according to a behavioral pairing strategy.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the initial timeout window may be extended by a predetermined duration of time.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the initial timeout window may be extended until a number of pairing choices exceeds a predetermined threshold.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the initial timeout window may be extended until the task assignment system transitions to an L3 environment.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the initial timeout window may be extended based on information included in the extension request.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the method may further comprise transmitting, by the at least one computer processor, to the external pairing system, during the extended timeout window, updated information identifying the one or more tasks and the one or more agents, the updated information identifying a greater number of tasks, a greater number of agents, or a greater number of tasks and a greater number of agents than the first information.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the method may further comprise routing a task among the one or more tasks to an agent among the one or more agents in accordance with the selected pairing.
In another particular embodiment, the techniques may be realized as a method for pairing in an external pairing system communicatively coupled to a task assignment system 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, information that identifies one or more tasks waiting for assignment and one or more agents available for assignment; receiving, by the at least one computer processor, from the task assignment system, a pairing request that is associated with an initial timeout window; determining, by the at least one computer processor, to postpone selecting a pairing between the one or more tasks and the one or more agents; transmitting, by the at least one computer processor, to the task assignment system, at a first time within the initial timeout window, an extension request that includes an instruction to extend the initial timeout window; selecting, by the at least one computer processor, the pairing between the one or more tasks and the one or more agents; and transmitting, by the at least one computer processor, to the task assignment system, at a second time within the extended timeout window, a pairing response that identifies the selected pairing.
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 selected pairing may be selected according to a behavioral pairing strategy.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the initial timeout window may be extended by a predetermined duration of time.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the initial timeout window may be extended until a number of pairing choices exceeds a predetermined threshold.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the initial timeout window may be extended until the task assignment system transitions to an L3 environment.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the initial timeout window may be extended based on information included in the extension request.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the method may further comprise receiving, by the at least one computer processor, from the task assignment system, during the extended timeout window, updated information identifying the one or more tasks and the one or more agents, the updated information identifying a greater number of tasks, a greater number of agents, or a greater number of tasks and a greater number of agents than the first information.
In accordance with other aspects of this particular embodiment, the method may further comprise routing a task among the one or more tasks to an agent among the one or more agents in accordance with the selected pairing.
In another particular embodiment, the techniques may be realized as a system for pairing in a task assignment system with an external pairing system or a system for pairing in an external pairing system comprising at least one computer processor communicatively coupled to and configured to operate in the task assignment system or the external pairing system, wherein the at least one computer processor is further configured to perform the steps in the above-described methods.
In another particular embodiment, the techniques may be realized as an article of manufacture for pairing in a task assignment system with an external pairing system or an article of manufacture for pairing in 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 or 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 methods.
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 improving overall task assignment system performance potentially beyond what FIFO or PBR methods 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 multiple 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).
The performance of some pairing strategies may be improved when a task assignment system is in a particular environment or state. For example, the performance of a BP pairing strategy may improve in an L3 environment relative to an L1 or L2 environment, or in a state in which the number of pairing permutations exceeds a predetermined threshold. When a pairing system is integrated into a task assignment system, postponing the execution of a pairing strategy until the task assignment system is in the desired state may be straightforward given that the pairing system can readily cause the task assignment system to postpone execution of the pairing strategy and/or retrieve current state information from the task assignment system. As explained in detail below, embodiments of the present disclosure relate to techniques for pairing in a task assignment system with an external pairing system, where the ability of the pairing system to cause the task assignment system to postpone execution of the pairing strategy and/or retrieve current information about the state of task assignment system may be more limited.
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, route) 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 systems, 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 or improve the overall performance of the task assignment system 200.
The performance of a pairing strategy or combination of pairing strategies may be improved when the task assignment system 200 is in a particular state. For example, the performance of a BP pairing strategy may improve in an L3 environment relative to an L1 or L2 environment, or in a state in which the number of pairing permutations exceeds a predetermined threshold. Given that the pairing system 290 is integrated with—or “internal” to—the task assignment system 200, postponing the execution of a pairing strategy until the task assignment system 200 is in the desired state may be straightforward given that the pairing system 290 can readily cause the task assignment system 200 to postpone execution of the pairing strategy and/or retrieve current state information from the task assignment system 200. However, in a task assignment system with an external pairing system, postponing execution of a pairing strategy 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).
Relative to the internal pairing system 390, the external pairing system 395 may have access to less information associated with switch 380, e.g., a limited subset of information that is selected and shared by the switch 380. Similarly, relative to the internal pairing system 390, the external pairing system 395 may have less control over the operation of switch 380. Such information and/or control is generally sufficient for the external pairing system 395 to determine the task-agent pairing and convey the determined task-agent pairing to switch 380. 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. 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 route requests to either or both of the internal pairing system 390 and the external pairing system 395 to 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, the task assignment system 300 may 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, the performance of the external pairing system 395 may be determined at least in part by a number of pairing choices available to the external pairing system 395 at a given point in time. For example, in an L1 environment (agent surplus, one task; select among multiple available/idle agents), the number of pairing choices corresponds to the number of agents that are available. In an L2 environment (task surplus, one available/idle agent; select among multiple tasks in queue), the number of pairing choices corresponds to the number of tasks available. In an L3 environment (multiple agents and multiple tasks; select among pairing permutations), the number of pairing choices corresponds to the number of permutations between the number of agents and tasks that are available.
The effect of having a small number of pairing choices may be to reduce the performance gains that can be derived from using a higher performing pairing strategy (e.g., BP) relative to a traditional pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO or PBR). For example, when one agent and one task are available, there is a single pairing choice, so any pairing strategy will select the same pairing. On the other hand, when many agents and/or tasks are available, this yields a large number of pairing choices. The strategy for selecting among this large number of pairing choices can have a significant impact on performance. Accordingly, the difference between a high performing pairing strategy and a traditional pairing strategy generally increases with the number of pairing choices. The relationship between the number of available pairing choices and performance is described in detail in, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 10,257,354, which is incorporated by reference herein.
Consequently, to improve the performance of a high performing pairing strategy, it may be desirable to delay or otherwise postpone the selection of a pairing between an agent and a task when the number of pairing choices is too small to achieve the desired level of performance (e.g., when the number of pairing choices is below a predetermined threshold, or when the task assignment system 300 is in the L1 or L2 state). Postponing the selection may provide time for new tasks to be added to the queue or more agents to become available, thereby increasing the number of pairing choices. In some embodiments, delaying the selection may allow the task assignment system 300 to transition from an L1 or L2 state (where the number of pairing choices increases linearly with the number of tasks or agents) to an L3 state (where number of pairing choices increases super-linearly with the number of tasks or agents).
When a pairing strategy is implemented by internal pairing system 390, postponing the selection can be implemented by directly monitoring the state of the task assignment system 300 and waiting until the number of pairing choices exceeds a threshold. See, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 10,257,354. However, for pairing strategies implemented by the external pairing system 395, adding a period of delay may involve an exchange of communications over an API between external pairing system 395 and task assignment system 300, as further described below.
The pairing method 400 may begin at block 410. At block 410, information that identifies one or more tasks waiting for assignment and one or more agents available for assignment may be transmitted to the external pairing system over an API. In some embodiments, the information may be transmitted in response to an event, such as a new task being added to a queue of the task assignment system, or a new agent becoming available to receive a task. In the context of a contact center, the one or more tasks may correspond to one or more incoming contacts (e.g., customer calls, emails, chat messages, or the like). In some embodiments, the block 410 may be repeated at various times during the pairing method 400 to reflect updated information about the one or more tasks and the one or more agents (e.g., block 410 may be repeated each time a new agent or task becomes available, when a transition between L1, L2, and/or L3 environments occurs, an event associated with the task assignment system occurs, or the like).
At block 420, a pairing request (e.g., a routing request) may be transmitted to the external pairing system over the API. The pairing request may include information that causes the external pairing system to execute a pairing strategy to determine which of the one or more tasks is to be routed to which of the one or more agents. In some embodiments, the pairing request may be transmitted along with (e.g., in the same message as) the identification of the one or more tasks and the one or more agents at block 410.
At block 430, an initial timeout window to wait for the external pairing system to respond to the pairing request may be determined. When the initial timeout window lapses without receiving a response from the external pairing system, the pairing method 400 may determine that an error or fault occurred. For example, it may be determined that the pairing request or response encountered an error in transmission, the external pairing system may be down or inaccessible, the format of the pairing request or response may be invalid or incompatible with the API, or the like. In general, the duration of the initial timeout window may be selected to provide enough time for the external pairing system to respond under normal conditions (e.g., accounting for routine transmission delays and latency) without triggering an error. The duration can be fixed or flexible (e.g., adaptively updated based on current network conditions or the like). When it is determined that an error or fault has occurred, one or more remedial actions may be taken. Illustrative examples of remedial actions can include, but are not limited to, resending the pairing request (e.g., returning to block 420), notifying an operator of the task assignment system and/or the external pairing system, re-routing the pairing request from the external pairing system to an internal pairing system (e.g., internal pairing system 390), or the like.
At block 440, an extension request may be received, from the external pairing system over the API, at a first time within the initial timeout window. The extension request may include an instruction to extend the initial timeout window. In some embodiments, the extension request may be received when the external pairing system determines that the state of the task assignment system is suboptimal for implementing a pairing strategy. For example, the extension request may be received when the external pairing system determines that the number of pairing choices (e.g., the number of permutations of pairings between the one or more tasks and the one or more agents) is below a predetermined threshold. The predetermined threshold can be set to a value where the number of pairing choices is too low for the pairing strategy of the external pairing system to achieve optimal or near-optimal performance. In some embodiments, the extension request may be received when the external pairing system determines that the environment of the task assignment system is not an L3 environment (e.g., the environment is an L1 or an L2 environment). The extension request may include any information suitable to convey the instruction to extend the initial timeout window. For example, the extension request can include a control flag or other indicator. In some embodiments, the extension request may include information that indicates an amount of time by which to extend the duration of the initial timeout window. The extension request can also include other criteria for extending the timeout window (e.g., an indication to extend the timeout window until the number of available agents, tasks, and/or pairing choices reaches a predetermined value, or until the environment develops into an L3 environment).
At block 450, the initial timeout window may be extended in response to receiving the extension request. Providing an extended timeout window to wait for a response from the external pairing system may provide time for new tasks to be added to the queue and/or for more agents to become available. The duration of the extended timeout window may be fixed or flexible (e.g., determined adaptively based on network conditions). In some embodiments, the duration of the extended timeout window may be determined based on information included in the extension request, such as a requested duration of the time extension.
At block 460, one or more updates may be transmitted, to the external pairing system over the API, during the extended timeout window. The one or more updates may include updated information (e.g., updated relative to the information transmitted at block 410) that identifies the one or more tasks waiting for assignment and one or more agents available for assignment. Transmitting the updates may be triggered by various events, such as a new task being added to the queue and/or more agents becoming available. Accordingly, the updated information may identify more tasks and/or agents than the original information transmitted at block 410. In some embodiments, the updates may be transmitted at predetermined intervals, e.g., periodically. Each time an update is transmitted, the timeout window may be optionally extended by an additional duration to provide additional time for the external pairing system account for the updated information in its response.
At block 470, a pairing response that identifies a selected pairing between the one or more tasks and the one or more agents may be received, from the external pairing system over the API, at a second time within the extended timeout window. The pairing response generally provides information sufficient for a determination to be made as to which task is to be routed to which agent. In some embodiments, the pairing response may be received in response to the external pairing system determining that, during the extended timeout window, the number of pairing choices reached or exceeded a predetermined threshold. In some embodiments, the pairing response may be received in response to the external pairing system determining that, during the extended timeout window, the environment transitioned from an L1 or L2 environment to an L3 environment. Once the selected pairing is received, a corresponding task may be assigned to a corresponding agent in accordance with the selected pairing.
The foregoing description of the pairing method 400 is non-limiting, and various of its processes may be added, removed, modified, substituted, or rearranged without departing from the broader spirit and scope of the disclosure. In some embodiments, the timeout window can be extended multiple times, e.g., a plurality of extension requests may be received. For example, the timeout window may be re-extended when, at or near the end of a currently extended timeout window, the external pairing system determines that the number of pairing choices is still below the predetermined threshold or the environment has not yet developed into an L3 environment. The maximum number of times that the window can be extended, or the maximum total duration of the extended timeout window, may be limited. For example, a policy may be in place between the task assignment system and the external pairing system that specifies the maximum number of times the timeout window can be extended or the maximum total duration of the extended timeout window. These limits may also be specified in a configuration file.
During the extended timeout window, the external pairing system may generate multiple pairing selections, e.g., the pairing method 400 may receive a plurality of pairing responses that identify a selected pairing between the one or more tasks and the one or more agents. In some embodiments, an updated pairing response may be received each time the pairing method 400 transmits an update to the external pairing system. In this manner, the selected pairing at a given point in time during the extended timeout window may be based on up-to-date information about available tasks and agents. The pairing method 400 may postpone implementing the selected pairing until the end of the extended timeout window, such that the selected pairing as of the end of the extended timeout window (accounting for updates received during the timeout window) serves as the final selected pairing that is used to route a corresponding task to a corresponding agent.
The pairing method 500 may begin at block 510. At block 510, information that identifies one or more tasks waiting for assignment and one or more agents available for assignment may be received from the task assignment system over an API. In some embodiments, the information may be received in response to an event detected at the task assignment system, such as a new task being added to a queue of the task assignment system, or a new agent becoming available to receive a task. In the context of a contact center, the one or more tasks may correspond to one or more incoming contacts (e.g., customer calls, emails, chat messages, or the like). In some embodiments, the block 510 may be repeated at various times during the pairing method 500 to reflect updated information about the one or more tasks and the one or more agents (e.g., block 510 may be repeated each time a new agent or task becomes available, when a transition between L1, L2, and/or L3 environments occurs, or the like).
At block 520, a pairing request (e.g., a routing request) may be received from the task assignment system over the API. In response to receiving the pairing request, a pairing strategy (e.g., a BP strategy) may be executed to determine which of the one or more tasks is to be routed to which of the one or more agents. In some embodiments, the pairing request may be received along with (e.g., in the same message as) the identification of the one or more tasks and the one or more agents at block 510. In some embodiments consistent with
At block 530, a determination may be made to postpone selecting a pairing between the one or more tasks and the one or more agents. In some embodiments, the determination to postpone the selection may be made in response to determining that the current state of the task assignment system is suboptimal for implementing the pairing strategy. For example, the selection may be postponed when the number of pairing choices (e.g., the number of permutations of pairings between the one or more tasks and the one or more agents) is below a predetermined threshold. The predetermined threshold may be set to a value at which the number of pairing choices is too low for the pairing strategy of the external pairing system to achieve optimal or near-optimal performance. In some embodiments, the determination to postpone the selection may be made in response to determining that the environment is not an L3 environment (e.g., the environment is an L1 or an L2 environment). By postponing the selection, additional time may be provided for the number of pairing choices to increase and/or for the environment to develop into an L3 environment. In some embodiments, determining to postpone the selection may include determining a duration of time to postpone the selection, the duration being fixed or flexible.
At block 540, an extension request that includes an instruction to extend the initial timeout window may be transmitted, to the task assignment system over the API, at a first time within the initial timeout window. The extension request can generally include any information suitable to convey the instruction to extend the initial timeout window. For example, the extension request can include a control flag or other indicator. In some embodiments, the extension request may include information that indicates an amount of time by which to extend the duration of the initial timeout window. The extension request may include other criteria for extending the timeout window (e.g., an indication to extend the timeout window until the number of available agents, tasks, and/or pairing choices reaches a predetermined threshold, or until the environment develops into an L3 environment). The extension request may cause the task assignment system to extend the initial timeout window. In turn, extending the timeout window may provide time for new tasks to be added to the queue and/or for more agents to become available. The duration of the extended timeout window may be fixed or flexible (e.g., determined adaptively based on network conditions). In some embodiments, the duration of the extended timeout window may be determined based on information included in the extension request.
At block 550, one or more updates may be received, from the task assignment system over the API, during the extended timeout window. For example, the one or more updates may include updated information (e.g., updated relative to the information received at block 510) that identifies the one or more tasks waiting for assignment and one or more agents available for assignment. Receiving the updates may be triggered by various events associated with the task assignment system, such as a new task being added to the queue and/or more agents becoming available. Accordingly, the updated information may identify more tasks and/or agents than the original information transmitted at block 510. The updates may also be received at predetermined intervals, e.g., periodically.
At block 560, a pairing between the one or more tasks and the one or more agents may be selected. In some embodiments, the pairing may be selected in response to determining that, during the extended timeout window, the number of pairing choices reached or exceeded a predetermined threshold at which the performance of the pairing strategy is sufficiently high to justify selecting a pairing. In some embodiments, the pairing may be selected in response to determining that, during the extended timeout window, the environment transitioned from an L1 or L2 environment to an L3 environment. In some embodiments, the pairing may be selected using a pairing strategy implemented by the external pairing system, such as the BP strategy. Executing the pairing strategy can include executing one or more artificial intelligence models.
At block 570, a pairing response that identifies the selected pairing may be transmitted, to the task assignment system over the API, at a second time within the extended timeout window. The pairing response generally provides information sufficient for the task assignment system to determine which task is to be routed to which agent. Transmitting the pairing response may cause the task assignment system to assign a corresponding task to a corresponding agent in accordance with the selected pairing.
The foregoing description of the pairing method 500 is non-limiting, and various of its processes may be added, removed, modified, substituted, or rearranged without departing from the broader spirit and scope of the disclosure. In some embodiments, the pairing method 500 can request multiple extensions of the timeout window, e.g., a plurality of extension requests may be transmitted. For example, the timeout window may be re-extended when, at or near the end of a currently extended timeout window, it is determined that the number of pairing choices is still below the predetermined threshold. The maximum number of times that the window can be extended, or the maximum duration to which the timeout window can be extended, may be limited. For example, a policy may be in place between the pairing method 500 and the task assignment system that specifies the maximum number of times the timeout window can be extended or the maximum duration of the timeout window. Moreover, the maximum number of times the timeout window can be extended or the maximum duration of the timeout window may be specified in a configuration file.
During the extended timeout window, multiple pairing selections may be generated and transmitted, e.g., a plurality of pairing responses that identify a selected pairing between the one or more tasks and the one or more agents may be transmitted. In some embodiments, an updated pairing response may be transmitted each time an update from the task assignment system is received. In this manner, the selected pairing at a given point in time during the extended timeout window may be based on up-to-date information about available tasks and agents. The task assignment system may postpone implementing the selected pairing until the end of the extended timeout window, such that the selected pairing as of the end of the timeout window (accounting for updates received during the timeout window) serves as the final selected pairing that is used to route a corresponding task to a corresponding agent.
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. 62/970,529, 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 et al. | 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 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 9042265 | Vendrow et al. | May 2015 | B1 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 10956855 | Coughran | Mar 2021 | B1 |
| 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 |
| 20120269053 | Yu | Oct 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 |
| 20180191904 | Chishti | Jul 2018 | A1 |
| 20180316793 | Kan et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
| 20180316794 | Kan et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
| 20190149619 | Lisac | May 2019 | 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 |
| 108197912 | Jun 2018 | CN |
| 110177181 | Aug 2019 | CN |
| 110740217 | Jan 2020 | 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20210240531 A1 | Aug 2021 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 62970529 | Feb 2020 | US |
