Why contacts that span intervals must be decomposed into activity-based work history

The increase in digital channels means contact centers are handling more contacts, both synchronous and asynchronous, that have a lifespan longer than the planning interval. This has introduced some complex new challenges into the forecasting process.

Most workforce management (WFM) solutions on the market today have two major shortcomings: They treat work items that span multiple planning intervals as a single work item, and they treat asynchronous work in the same way as synchronous work. Both shortcomings lead to planning and scheduling inaccuracy.

Consider the case of a contact that is received in the morning but not completed until later in the day. What’s the best way to forecast contact center requirements? With an asynchronous contact, such as an email or chat, it’s possible (and highly likely) that the contact isn’t being worked on the entire time from when it arrives until when it is complete.

Then there’s the case of contact types (CTs) or queues with low-volume contacts. If a contact arrives at 9 a.m. but isn’t completed until the next interval at 9:30 a.m., and no other volume is received during the 9:30 a.m. interval, what’s the best forecasting approach?

Both of these examples complicate forecasting: If contacts are forecasted when they complete (i.e., obituary or “when contact ended” reporting), how can you ensure that you have the appropriate staffing for when the contact arrived? When a WFM system has to deal with data that's based on the “when contact ended” paradigm, it can misalign the staff requirement calculations and the forecasting, breaking WFM processes. You don't know what's happening to the work item as it spans intervals.

If, on the other hand, you forecast the requirement based on when the contact arrived, you need to determine how to manage all of the intervals when the contact was actively being worked. In the second example above, having handle time but no handled volume would result in a divide by zero error for the 9:30 am interval, again breaking WFM processes.

These challenges call for an approach in which the amount of agent time that is applied to the contact is reported in the interval in which it occurred—a “true to interval” approach that provides an accurate representation of what happens within each interval. This requires decomposing contacts to the interval in which work occurred. Then, the final piece is to count the contact when it arrives and also count the contact in the intervals in which the contact is being worked or active. By capturing the handle time true to the interval and capturing the contact in the interval it is answered—and any additional intervals in which it is active—you are positioned to generate a true staffing requirement. Requirements are thus based on the required agent time true to the interval.

NICE WFM’s True to Interval (TTI) Analytics offers a solution. TTI unlocks the ability to decompose these contacts into the amount of time (activity of a contact) and the number of contacts that were worked in each interval. This allows you to determine accurate interval staffing requirements, with forecasts, staffing requirements, and schedules driven by patterns of interval-specific activity—not just case counts and not just when things ended, but the actual interval-specific activity the end user has to put in to resolve longer conversations.

NICE WFM has broken the chains of the WFM paradigm with TTI, making NICE the only WFM solution for the blended digital office.

Learn more about how NICE WFM can improve your omni-channel environment.