Techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system
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 techniques for benchmarking pairing strategies in a contact center system comprising: cycling, by at least one processor, 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.
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;
determining, by the at least one computer processor, a prior pairing of a first contact;
selecting, by the at least one computer processor, a first pairing strategy of the at least two pairing strategies based on the prior pairing;
pairing, by the at least one computer processor, the first contact to a first agent using the first pairing strategy;
determining, by the at least one computer processor, a difference in performance between the at least two 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 optimizing performance of the contact center system may be realized using the first pairing strategy instead of another of the at least two pairing strategies.
2. The method of claim 1 , further comprising:
determining, by the at least one computer processor, an arrival time of a second contact;
selecting, by the at least one computer processor, a second pairing strategy of the at least two pairing strategies based on the arrival time; and
pairing, by the at least one computer processor, the second contact to a second agent using the second pairing strategy.
3. The method of claim 2 , further comprising associating, by the at least one computer processor, an identifier of the second pairing strategy with a record of an interaction between the second contact and the second agent.
4. The method of claim 1 , wherein the at least two pairing strategies are allocated equal proportions of a cycle time period.
5. The method of claim 1 , wherein a duration of a cycle through each of the at least two pairing strategies is less than an hour.
6. The method of claim 1 , wherein a duration of a cycle through each of the at least two pairing strategies is less than a day.
7. The method of claim 1 , wherein a duration of a cycle through each of the at least two pairing strategies is less than a week.
8. The method of claim 1 , wherein a second pairing strategy of the at least two pairing strategies would have been selected based on an arrival time of the first contact in an absence of the prior pairing.
9. The method of claim 1 , further comprising determining, by the at least one computer processor, a differential in value attributable to at least one pairing strategy of the at least two pairing strategies.
10. The method of claim 9 , further comprising determining, by the at least one computer processor, compensation to a provider of the at least one pairing strategy of the at least two pairing strategies based on the differential value.
11. The method of claim 1 , wherein at least one pairing strategy of the at least two pairing strategies comprises at least one of:
a behavioral pairing (BP) strategy,
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, or
a highest-priority-contact pairing strategy.
12. The method of claim 1 , wherein a duration of a cycle through each of the at least two pairing strategies aligns infrequently with changes to hours of a day.
13. 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;
determine a prior pairing of a first contact;
select a first pairing strategy of the at least two pairing strategies based on the prior pairing;
pair the first contact to a first agent using the first pairing strategy;
determine a difference in performance between the at least two 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 optimizing performance of the contact center system may be realized using the first pairing strategy instead of another of the at least two pairing strategies.
14. The system of claim 13 , wherein the at least one computer processor is further configured to:
determine an arrival time of a second contact;
select a second pairing strategy of the at least two pairing strategies based on the arrival time; and
pair the second contact to a second agent using the second pairing strategy.
15. The system of claim 14 , wherein the at least one computer processor is further configured to associate an identifier of the second pairing strategy with a record of an interaction between the second contact and the second agent.
16. 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;
determine a prior pairing of a first contact;
select a first pairing strategy of the at least two pairing strategies based on the prior pairing;
pair the first contact to a first agent using the first pairing strategy;
determine a difference in performance between the at least two 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 optimizing performance of the contact center system may be realized using the first pairing strategy instead of another of the at least two pairing strategies.
17. The article of manufacture of claim 16 , wherein the at least one computer processor is caused to operate further so as to:
determine an arrival time of a second contact;
select a second pairing strategy of the at least two pairing strategies based on the arrival time; and
pair the second contact to a second agent using the second pairing strategy.
18. The article of manufacture of claim 16 , wherein the at least one computer processor is caused to operate further so as to associate an identifier of the first pairing strategy with a record of an interaction between the first contact and the first agent.
19. The system of claim 13 , wherein the at least two pairing strategies are allocated equal proportions of a cycle time period.
20. The system of claim 13 , wherein a duration of a cycle through each of the at least two pairing strategies is less than an hour.
21. The system of claim 13 , wherein a duration of a cycle through each of the at least two pairing strategies is less than a day.
22. The system of claim 13 , wherein a duration of a cycle through each of the at least two pairing strategies is less than a week.
23. The system of claim 13 , wherein a second pairing strategy of the at least two pairing strategies would have been selected based on an arrival time of the first contact in an absence of the prior pairing.
24. The system of claim 13 , wherein the at least one computer processor is further configured to determine, a differential in value attributable to at least one pairing strategy of the at least two pairing strategies.
25. The system of claim 24 , wherein the at least one computer processor is further configured to determine compensation to a provider of the at least one pairing strategy of the at least two pairing strategies based on the differential value.
26. The system of claim 13 , wherein at least one pairing strategy of the at least two pairing strategies comprises at least one of:
a behavioral pairing (BP) strategy,
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, or
a highest-priority-contact pairing strategy.
27. The system of claim 13 , wherein a duration of a cycle through each of the at least two pairing strategies aligns infrequently with changes to hours of a day.
28. The article of manufacture of claim 16 , wherein the at least two pairing strategies are allocated equal proportions of a cycle time period.
29. The article of manufacture of claim 16 , wherein a duration of a cycle through each of the at least two pairing strategies is less than an hour.
30. The article of manufacture of claim 16 , wherein a duration of a cycle through each of the at least two pairing strategies is less than a day.
31. The article of manufacture of claim 16 , wherein a duration of a cycle through each of the at least two pairing strategies is less than a week.
32. The article of manufacture of claim 16 , wherein a second pairing strategy of the at least two pairing strategies would have been selected based on an arrival time of the first contact in an absence of the prior pairing.
33. The article of manufacture of claim 16 , wherein the at least one computer processor is further caused to operate so as to determine, a differential in value attributable to at least one pairing strategy of the at least two pairing strategies.
34. The system of claim 33 , wherein the at least one computer processor is further caused to operate so as to determine compensation to a provider of the at least one pairing strategy of the at least two pairing strategies based on the differential value.
35. The article of manufacture of claim 16 , wherein at least one pairing strategy of the at least two pairing strategies comprises at least one of:
a behavioral pairing (BP) strategy,
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, or
a highest-priority-contact pairing strategy.
36. The article of manufacture of claim 16 , wherein a duration of a cycle through each of the at least two pairing strategies aligns infrequently with changes to hours of a day.