Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system

• US 9,774,740 B2
• Filed: 07/28/2016
• Issued: 09/26/2017
• Est. Priority Date: 01/28/2008
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Afiniti Ltd
• Original Assignee: Afiniti Europe Technologies Limited (Afiniti Ltd)
• Inventors: Chishti, Zia
• Primary Examiner(s): NGUYEN, QUYNH H
• Application Number:
  US15/221,698
• Publication Number:
  US 20170208176A1
• Time in Patent Office: 425 Days
• Field of Search: 37926512, 37926511, 37926509
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/0639 Performance analysis of employees; Performance analysis of enterprise or organisation operations
• CPC Class Codes: H04M 2201/18 Comparators
• CPC Class Codes: H04M 2201/36 Memories
• 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
• CPC Class Codes: H04M 3/5235 Dependent on call type or called number [DNIS]

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 comprising: cycling, by at least one processor configured for contact center operations, among at least two pairing strategies; and determining, by the at least one processor, a difference in performance between the at least two pairing strategies, wherein at least one contact was paired in a sequence of contact interactions to reach a final outcome during a final contact interaction of the sequence of contact interactions.

Claims

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

cycling, by at least one computer processor communicatively coupled to and configured to operate in the contact center system, among at least two pairing strategies including a first pairing strategy and a second pairing strategy;

determining, by the at least one computer processor, a first contact that was paired in a sequence of contact interactions to reach a final outcome during a final contact interaction of the sequence of contact interactions, wherein at least one contact interaction of the sequence of interactions was paired using the first pairing strategy, and wherein the final contact interaction was paired using the second pairing strategy;

attributing, by the at least one computer processor, a first portion of credit for the final outcome to the first pairing strategy and a second portion of credit for the final outcome to the second pairing strategy;

determining, by the at least one computer processor, a difference in performance between the at least two pairing strategies based at least in part on the first and second portions of credit attributed to the first and second pairing strategies; and

outputting, by the at least one computer processor, the difference in performance between the at least two pairing strategies for benchmarking the at least two pairing strategies, wherein the performance difference demonstrates that using the first pairing strategy instead of another of the at least two pairing strategies improves performance of the contact center system.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein a final outcome indicator for each of the sequence of contact interactions indicates the final outcome determined from the final contact interaction of the sequence of contact interactions.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein a pairing strategy indicator for each of the sequence of contact interactions indicates which of the at least two pairing strategies was used for pairing each of the sequence of contact interactions.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein an iteration indicator for each of the sequence of contact interactions indicates a sequence iteration number in which each of the sequence of contact interactions occurred.

5. The method of claim 4, wherein determining the difference in performance further comprises:

determining, by the at least one computer processor, an intermediate measure of performance for each set of contact interactions indicated by a same sequence iteration number; and

determining, by the at least one computer processor, an overall difference in performance based on a combination of the intermediate measure of performance for each set of contact interactions for all sequence iteration numbers.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein the combination is a weighted average of the intermediate measure of performance for each set of contact interactions.

7. The method of claim 1, further comprising:

determining, by the at least one computer processor, each arrival time of the at least one contact; and

selecting, by the at least one computer processor, one of the at least two pairing strategies for each arrival time of the at least one contact based on each arrival time and irrespective of any prior pairings for the at least one contact.

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

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

cycle among at least two pairing strategies including a first pairing strategy and a second pairing strategy;

determine a first contact that was paired in a sequence of contact interactions to reach a final outcome during a final contact interaction of the sequence of contact interactions, wherein at least one contact interaction of the sequence of interactions was paired using the first pairing strategy, and wherein the final contact interaction was paired using the second pairing strategy;

attribute a first portion of credit for the final outcome to the first pairing strategy and a second portion of credit for the final outcome to the second pairing strategy;

determine a difference in performance between the at least two pairing strategies based at least in part on the first and second portions of credit attributed to the first and second pairing strategies; and

output the difference in performance between the at least two pairing strategies for benchmarking the at least two pairing strategies, wherein the performance difference demonstrates that using the first pairing strategy instead of another of the at least two pairing strategies improves performance of the contact center system.

9. The system of claim 8, wherein a final outcome indicator for each of the sequence of contact interactions indicates the final outcome determined from the final contact interaction of the sequence of contact interactions.

10. The system of claim 8, wherein a pairing strategy indicator for each of the sequence of contact interactions indicates which of the at least two pairing strategies was used for pairing each of the sequence of contact interactions.

11. The system of claim 8, wherein an iteration indicator for each of the sequence of contact interactions indicates a sequence iteration number in which each of the sequence of contact interactions occurred.

12. The system of claim 11, wherein the processor, configured to determine the difference in performance, is further configured to:

determine an intermediate measure of performance for each set of contact interactions indicated by a same sequence iteration number; and

determine an overall difference in performance based on a combination of the intermediate measure of performance for each set of contact interactions for all sequence iteration numbers.

13. The system of claim 12, wherein the combination is a weighted average of the intermediate measure of performance for each set of contact interactions.

14. The system of claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to:

determine each arrival time of the at least one contact; and

select one of the at least two pairing strategies for each arrival time of the at least one contact based on each arrival time and irrespective of any prior pairings for the at least one contact.

15. 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 operate in the contact center system and thereby cause the at least one computer processor to operate so as to;

cycle among at least two pairing strategies including a first pairing strategy and a second pairing strategy;

determine a first contact that was paired in a sequence of contact interactions to reach a final outcome during a final contact interaction of the sequence of contact interactions, wherein at least one contact interaction of the sequence of interactions was paired using the first pairing strategy, and wherein the final contact interaction was paired using the second pairing strategy;

attribute a first portion of credit for the final outcome to the first pairing strategy and a second portion of credit for the final outcome to the second pairing strategy;

determine a difference in performance between the at least two pairing strategies based at least in part on the first and second portions of credit attributed to the first and second pairing strategies; and

output the difference in performance between the at least two pairing strategies for benchmarking the at least two pairing strategies, wherein the performance difference demonstrates that using the first pairing strategy instead of another of the at least two pairing strategies improves performance of the contact center system.

16. The article of manufacture of claim 15, wherein a final outcome indicator for each of the sequence of contact interactions indicates the final outcome determined from the final contact interaction of the sequence of contact interactions.

17. The article of manufacture of claim 15, wherein a pairing strategy indicator for each of the sequence of contact interactions indicates which of the at least two pairing strategies was used for pairing each of the sequence of contact interactions.

18. The article of manufacture of claim 15, wherein an iteration indicator for each of the sequence of contact interactions indicates a sequence iteration number in which each of the sequence of contact interactions occurred.

19. The article of manufacture of claim 18, wherein the processor, caused to operate so as to determine the difference in performance, is further caused to operate so as to:

determine an intermediate measure of performance for each set of contact interactions indicated by a same sequence iteration number; and

determine an overall difference in performance based on a combination of the intermediate measure of performance for each set of contact interactions for all sequence iteration numbers.

20. The article of manufacture of claim 19, wherein the combination is a weighted average of the intermediate measure of performance for each set of contact interactions.