Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system

• US 10,419,615 B2
• Filed: 08/28/2018
• Issued: 09/17/2019
• Est. Priority Date: 08/30/2016
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Afiniti Ltd
• Original Assignee: Afiniti Europe Technologies Limited (Afiniti Ltd)
• Inventors: Rizvi, Syed Meesum Raza
• Primary Examiner(s): Nguyen, Quynh H
• Application Number:
  US16/114,511
• Publication Number:
  US 20180367671A1
• Time in Patent Office: 385 Days
• Field of Search: 37926501, 37926502, 37926511, 37926512, 37926601, 7057013
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 17/18 for evaluating statistical data , e.g. average values, frequency distributions, probability functions, regression analysis forecasting specially adapted for a specific administrative, business or logistic context G06Q10/04
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/0639 Performance analysis of employees; Performance analysis of enterprise or organisation operations
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06398 Performance of employee with respect to a job function
• CPC Class Codes: H04M 2203/551 Call history
• CPC Class Codes: H04M 2203/556 Statistical analysis and interpretation
• CPC Class Codes: H04M 3/5141 Details of processing calls and other types of contacts in an unified manner unified messaging in packet-switching networks H04L51/56
• CPC Class Codes: H04M 3/5232 Call distribution algorithms
• CPC Class Codes: H04M 3/5233 Operator skill based call distribution

Abstract

Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system are disclosed. In one particular embodiment, the techniques may be realized as a method for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system including determining results for a first plurality of contact-agent interactions, determining results for a second plurality of contact-agent interactions, and determining combined results across the first and second pluralities of contact-agent interactions corrected for a Yule-Simpson effect.

Claims

1. A method for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system comprising:

determining, by at least one computer processor communicatively coupled to and configured to perform benchmarking operations in the contact center system, a first benchmark for a first pairing strategy and a second pairing strategy, wherein the first benchmark is uncorrected for a Yule-Simpson effect;

determining, by the at least one computer processor, a second benchmark for the first and second pairing strategies, wherein the second benchmark is corrected for the Yule-Simpson effect;

outputting, by the at least one computer processor, an amount of relative performance difference between the first and second benchmarks attributable to the Yule-Simpson effect, wherein the amount of relative performance difference demonstrates that correcting for the Yule-Simpson effect results in optimized performance of the contact center system;

wherein the first and second benchmarks are realized by establishing, in a switch of the contact center system, connections between at least one contact and at least one agent based upon the first and second pairing strategies.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first benchmark indicates that the second pairing strategy outperformed the first pairing strategy, and wherein the second benchmark indicates that the first pairing strategy outperformed the second pairing strategy.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the first benchmark indicates that the first pairing strategy outperformed the second pairing strategy by a first amount, and wherein the second benchmark indicates that the first pairing strategy outperformed the second pairing strategy by a second amount greater than the first amount.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein the second benchmark is corrected for the Yule-Simpson effect by partitioning a plurality of contact-agent interactions into at least two subsets of contact-agent interaction results prior to aggregating the at least two subsets of contact-agent interaction results.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein the first pairing strategy is a behavioral pairing (BP) strategy.

6. The method of claim 1, wherein the second pairing strategy comprises at least one of:

a first-in, first-out (FIFO) pairing strategy,

a performance-based routing (PBR) strategy,

a highest-performing-agent pairing strategy,

a highest-performing-agent-for-contact-type pairing strategy,

a longest-available-agent pairing strategy,

a least-occupied-agent pairing strategy,

a randomly-selected-agent pairing strategy,

a randomly-selected-contact pairing strategy,

a fewest-contacts-taken-by-agent pairing strategy,

a sequentially-labeled-agent pairing strategy,

a longest-waiting-contact pairing strategy, and

a highest-priority-contact pairing strategy.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein the Yule-Simpson effect was a result of an underlying partitioning of contact-agent interactions into at least the first and second pluralities of contact-agent interactions according to at least one of:

a plurality of time periods,

a plurality of agent skills,

a plurality of contact-agent assignment strategies (pairing strategies),

a plurality of contact center sites,

a plurality of contact center switches, and

a plurality of benchmarking schedules.

8. The method of claim 1, wherein the contact center system alternates between applying the first and second pairing strategies more frequently than once per hour.

9. A system for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system comprising:

at least one computer processor communicatively coupled to and configured to perform benchmarking operations in the contact center system, wherein the at least one computer processor is further configured to;

determine a first benchmark for a first pairing strategy and a second pairing strategy, wherein the first benchmark is uncorrected for a Yule-Simpson effect;

determine a second benchmark for the first and second pairing strategies, wherein the second benchmark is corrected for the Yule-Simpson effect;

output an amount of relative performance difference between the first and second benchmarks attributable to the Yule-Simpson effect, wherein the amount of relative performance difference demonstrates that correcting for the Yule-Simpson effect results in optimized performance of the contact center system;

wherein the first and second benchmarks are realized by establishing, in a switch of the contact center system, connections between at least one contact and at least one agent based upon the first and second pairing strategies.

10. The system of claim 9, wherein the first benchmark indicates that the second pairing strategy outperformed the first pairing strategy, and wherein the second benchmark indicates that the first pairing strategy outperformed the second pairing strategy.

11. The system of claim 9, wherein the first benchmark indicates that the first pairing strategy outperformed the second pairing strategy by a first amount, and wherein the second benchmark indicates that the first pairing strategy outperformed the second pairing strategy by a second amount greater than the first amount.

12. The system of claim 9, wherein the second benchmark is corrected for the Yule-Simpson effect by partitioning a plurality of contact-agent interactions into at least two subsets of contact-agent interaction results prior to aggregating the at least two subsets of contact-agent interaction results.

13. The system of claim 9, wherein the first pairing strategy is a behavioral pairing (BP) strategy.

14. The system of claim 9, wherein the second pairing strategy comprises at least one of:

a first-in, first-out (FIFO) pairing strategy,

a performance-based routing (PBR) strategy,

a highest-performing-agent pairing strategy,

a highest-performing-agent-for-contact-type pairing strategy,

a longest-available-agent pairing strategy,

a least-occupied-agent pairing strategy,

a randomly-selected-agent pairing strategy,

a randomly-selected-contact pairing strategy,

a fewest-contacts-taken-by-agent pairing strategy,

a sequentially-labeled-agent pairing strategy,

a longest-waiting-contact pairing strategy, and

a highest-priority-contact pairing strategy.

15. The system of claim 9, wherein the Yule-Simpson effect was a result of an underlying partitioning of contact-agent interactions into at least the first and second pluralities of contact-agent interactions according to at least one of:

a plurality of time periods,

a plurality of agent skills,

a plurality of contact-agent assignment strategies (pairing strategies),

a plurality of contact center sites,

a plurality of contact center switches, and

a plurality of benchmarking schedules.

16. The system of claim 9, wherein the contact center system alternates between applying the first and second pairing strategies more frequently than once per hour.

17. An article of manufacture for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system comprising:

a non-transitory computer 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 perform benchmarking operations in the contact center system and thereby cause the at least one computer processor to operate further so as to;

determine a first benchmark for a first pairing strategy and a second pairing strategy, wherein the first benchmark is uncorrected for a Yule-Simpson effect;

determine a second benchmark for the first and second pairing strategies, wherein the second benchmark is corrected for the Yule-Simpson effect;

output an amount of relative performance difference between the first and second benchmarks attributable to the Yule-Simpson effect, wherein the amount of relative performance difference demonstrates that correcting for the Yule-Simpson effect results in optimized performance of the contact center system;

wherein the first and second benchmarks are realized by establishing, in a switch of the contact center system, connections between at least one contact and at least one agent based upon the first and second pairing strategies.

18. The article of manufacture of claim 17, wherein the first benchmark indicates that the second pairing strategy outperformed the first pairing strategy, and wherein the second benchmark indicates that the first pairing strategy outperformed the second pairing strategy.

19. The article of manufacture of claim 17, wherein the first benchmark indicates that the first pairing strategy outperformed the second pairing strategy by a first amount, and wherein the second benchmark indicates that the first pairing strategy outperformed the second pairing strategy by a second amount greater than the first amount.

20. The article of manufacture of claim 17, wherein the second benchmark is corrected for the Yule-Simpson effect by partitioning a plurality of contact-agent interactions into at least two subsets of contact-agent interaction results prior to aggregating the at least two subsets of contact-agent interaction results.