[cisco-voip] UCCX Abandoned Calls

Wed Apr 24 01:56:42 EDT 2013

Hi Matt,

Do you have a TAC case # for this? I'll take a look and do some testing myself and let you know what I find. A copy of the script that you're reporting on, or queues to the CSQ (depending on the data you're looking at in the report) would help too.

Let me know.

Thank you,

Ryan LaFountain
Unified Contact Center
Cisco Services
Direct: +1 919 392 9898
Email: rlafount at cisco.com
Hours: M – F 9:00am – 5:00pm

From: Matthew Loraditch <MLoraditch at heliontechnologies.com<mailto:MLoraditch at heliontechnologies.com>>
Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 1:26 AM
To: Anthony Holloway <avholloway+cisco-voip at gmail.com<mailto:avholloway+cisco-voip at gmail.com>>
Cc: "cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Abandoned Calls

This actually makes complete sense and explains a lot. I need to check and verify what data he's looking at.

Thanks!

Matthew G. Loraditch - CCVP, CCNA, CCDA

1965 Greenspring Drive
Timonium, MD 21093

voice. 410.252.8830
fax.  410.252.9284

Twitter<http://twitter.com/heliontech>  |  Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Helion/252157915296>  | Website<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>  |  Email Support<mailto:support at heliontechnologies.com?subject=Technical%20Support%20Request>
________________________________
From: avholloway at gmail.com<mailto:avholloway at gmail.com> [avholloway at gmail.com<mailto:avholloway at gmail.com>] on behalf of Anthony Holloway [avholloway+cisco-voip at gmail.com<mailto:avholloway+cisco-voip at gmail.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 5:13 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Abandoned Calls

I don't think the wording is clear enough to understand what they are trying to say, so I'll attempt to clarify it a bit, without actually claiming I know what they meant.  This is just an attempt.

Hi Matt,

When they said "...once they've been assigned to an agent...", what the probably meant was that a call flow which has executed the Select Resource step, and then has hung up.  This would mark the Contact as Abandoned at the CSQ level as well as the Application level.

When they said "...but caller disconnects who were not assigned to an agent yet...", what they probably meant was that a call flow which had not executed the Select Resource step, and then has hung up.  This would mark the Contact as Abandoned at the Application level, and have no affect on the CSQ level.

It's the latter example where we begin to see a difference in the reporting numbers.

Keep in mind that when you assign reporting rights to a user, you have the option of selecting IVR and/or ACD privs to the user.  The reason is because there is a difference in the reporting level: Application vs CSQ.

Cisco Supervisor Desktop will only show real time information based on CSQ metrics, and therefore, it will only be as accurate as Contacts affected by the former example.  Contacts pertaining to the latter example would be exempt from Supervisor Desktop metrics, and appear to be missing.

You didn't mention what HRC reports were being compared to CSD metrics, so that's all I have for the moment.  And it very well could be that you have a defect and the metrics are off by some measure.  I was simply trying to make sense of the comments from TAC, based on common misunderstandings of how reporting works.

I hope that helps.

Anthony Holloway

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130424/26c24ea6/attachment.html>