<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">
<div>
<div>
<div>Hi Anthony, </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I took a look at Matthew's case and the reports attached. You were almost completely correct in your assessment (kudos for that!). I believe this is not a matter of how the report itself is designed, just the behavior differences depending on how it is
being filtered. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The customer was seeing a large discrepancy between the number of calls listed in the Abandoned Call Detail Activity Report and CSD Voice CSQs – Team Summary Abandoned Calls field. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What I saw was that they were filtering the report based on Agent Name and selecting all of the agents on shift in the CSQ during the reporting interval. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think this resulted in the reporting only displaying records with the Agent Name field populated (and in the list of selected agent's in the filter). </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This captures only a small subset of abandon scenarios whereby the caller hangs up while the agent's phone is ringing or the call fails during transfer to agent or any other method of abandon after the agent has been allocated by the Select Resource step
but before they pick up (as this would then be marked as Handled). </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In contrast, the CSD Abandoned Calls field is for the CSQ and will show calls abandoned from the CSQ which is any time after the Select Resource step runs but before the agent picks up. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure if this counts abandons during
agent allocation so there may still be some small discrepancy. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I've asked for the customer to filter the Historical Report by the same CSQ as CSD to see if the numbers are closer together. So we'll see if my hypothesis is correct. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>All that being said, I read the TAC case and don't see anywhere where the above is enumerated or explained to the customer, so I'm not sure how they even came to that conclusion unless they figured it out themselves. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Let me know what you think. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>Thank you, </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Ryan LaFountain</div>
<div>Unified Contact Center</div>
<div>Cisco Services</div>
<div>Direct: +1 919 392 9898</div>
<div>Email: rlafount@cisco.com</div>
<div>Hours: M – F 9:00am – 5:00pm</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Matthew Loraditch <<a href="mailto:MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com">MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Wednesday, April 24, 2013 1:26 AM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Anthony Holloway <<a href="mailto:avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com">avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>"<a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Abandoned Calls<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><style id="owaParaStyle">P {
MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN-TOP: 0px
}
</style>
<div fpstyle="1" ocsi="0">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<p>This actually makes complete sense and explains a lot. I need to check and verify what data he's looking at.</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<div>
<p> </p>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">
<div><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #244061">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span><font color="#000000">Matthew G. Loraditch - CCVP, CCNA, CCDA<br>
</font></span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; "><br>
<font color="#000000">1965 Greenspring Drive</font></span><span><br>
</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; "><font color="#000000">Timonium, MD 21093</font></span><span><br>
</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; "><br>
<font color="#000000">voice. 410.252.8830<br>
fax. 410.252.9284 <br>
<br>
</font><a href="http://twitter.com/heliontech"><span style="COLOR: blue">Twitter</span></a><font color="#000000"> |
</font><a href="http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Helion/252157915296"><span style="COLOR: blue">Facebook</span></a><font color="#000000"> |
</font><a href="http://www.heliontechnologies.com/"><span style="COLOR: blue">Website</span></a><font color="#000000"> |
</font><a href="mailto:support@heliontechnologies.com?subject=Technical%20Support%20Request"><span style="COLOR: blue">Email Support</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; "></span></p>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 16px; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; COLOR: #000000">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF531835" style="DIRECTION: ltr"><font color="#000000" size="2" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:avholloway@gmail.com">avholloway@gmail.com</a> [<a href="mailto:avholloway@gmail.com">avholloway@gmail.com</a>] on behalf of Anthony Holloway [<a href="mailto:avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com">avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 23, 2013 5:13 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Matthew Loraditch<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Abandoned Calls<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>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.<br>
<br>
</div>
Hi Matt,<br>
</div>
<div><br>
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.<br>
<br>
</div>
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.<br>
<br>
</div>
It's the latter example where we begin to see a difference in the reporting numbers.<br>
<br>
</div>
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.<br>
<br>
</div>
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.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>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.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div></div>
</div>
I hope that helps.<br>
<br>
</div>
Anthony Holloway<br>
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</body>
</html>