Contact Center Agent Ranking and Supervisor Control Interface

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Automated contact center systems lack flexibility and fail to utilize human supervisors' intuition and experience effectively, as they rely on accurate agent qualification data and do not provide clear information for manual control or reporting on agent attributes, making it difficult to identify and reallocate agents to assist queues in trouble.

Innovation Solution

A system that generates a ranked list of agents based on their suitability for assignment to a selected queue, considering attributes like skills, status, and availability, allowing supervisors to manually control agent assignments and communicate with agents for prompt action.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Productivity

If automated systems are used for agent reallocation, then productivity is improved, but adaptability deteriorates because the systems rely on accurate agent qualification data and lack flexibility for manual control

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveagent reallocation efficiencyVSAvoidmanual control flexibility

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The patent introduces a supervisor interface as an intermediary between automated scoring systems and final agent assignment decisions. The interface presents pre-scored agent recommendations to supervisors, who then make the final allocation decisions, combining automated efficiency with human adaptability and experience-based judgment.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The system dynamically adjusts between automated and manual control modes. Automated scoring provides real-time recommendations that can be accepted or modified by supervisors, allowing the system to adapt its level of automation based on situational needs and supervisor preferences.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

2Ease of operation

If automated systems operate autonomously, then ease of operation is improved, but loss of information deteriorates because they do not benefit from human supervisors' intuition and experience

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesystem autonomyVSAvoidsupervisor intuition and experience

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of operationVSLoss of information

Solution Approach 1:

The system incorporates feedback loops where supervisor decisions and observations are fed back into the scoring algorithm. This allows the automated system to learn from human expertise and intuition over time, reducing information loss while maintaining ease of operation.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The supervisor interface acts as an intermediary that captures and utilizes human intuition and experience. Supervisors can override automated recommendations and provide contextual information that enriches the decision-making process, preventing loss of valuable human knowledge.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

3Adaptability or versatility

If manual control is provided for agent assignments, then adaptability is improved, but productivity deteriorates because supervisors must manually evaluate agent suitability without clear information presentation

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesupervisor control capabilityVSAvoidagent assignment efficiency

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary automated scoring and filtering of agents before presenting recommendations to supervisors. This preliminary action reduces the complexity of manual evaluation by pre-identifying suitable candidates, thereby maintaining supervisor adaptability while improving assignment efficiency.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The interface allows supervisors to adjust scoring parameters and criteria based on specific situational needs. This flexibility enables adaptive manual control while maintaining productivity through systematic evaluation frameworks rather than purely ad-hoc decisions.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

4Device complexity

If previous systems provided inadequate reporting on agent attributes, then device complexity is reduced, but measurement precision deteriorates because supervisors cannot assess agent suitability

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesystem simplicityVSAvoidagent suitability assessment

Core Design Contradiction:

Device complexityVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The system segments agent information into distinct, clearly presented attributes and scores. Rather than overwhelming supervisors with complex data, the interface divides agent suitability into measurable components such as skill matches, availability, and performance metrics, improving assessment precision while maintaining manageable complexity.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Data Source

PatentUS9020132B2Contact center agent filtering and relevancy ranking

Publication Date: 2015.04.28 AVAYA INC

AI summary

Methods and systems for supporting the monitoring and control of an automatic call distribution system are provided. In particular, a ranked list of candidate agents that can be assigned to handle contacts for a selected queue associated with an automatic call distribution system is presented to a supervisor. The supervisor can make agent assignments from the ranked list at the discretion of the supervisor. The assignment or reassignment can be effected by the supervisor through control inputs entered through the user interface. These control inputs can include reconfiguring agent and/or queue attributes. In addition, assignments can be effected through communications to agents made by the supervisor that are initiated through the user interface.