Push routing in a round-robin fashion
Is it possible to do skill based routing in a round-robin fashion?
I want to assign work to operators in a certain workgroup based on their skills and as well as in a round robin way. What I mean by that is, if an operator X gets work and completes the work I want to be able to pick the next operator Y in the workgroup and not the same operator X because there is no work in the queue. RUF pickbalancedoperator won't work because it doesn't take history into consideration. It only takes current workload, urgency, multiplier etc. Has anyone done this before? I would like to hear your experience around customising RUF (pickbalancedoperator).
I've asked this question in the PDN forum, I didn't get a response.
Pegasystems Inc.
US
Hello,
I don't believe there is any out of the box routing techniques that do this natively. I haven't been able to test but I suspect you could achieve your goal by using a decision table that could route to a workgroup member by an integer that is the case number or an identifier that increments by one modulo the size of the target work group. This modulo the size of the work group strategy might also work as a skill parameter as well. Let me know if given your further context of your situation if either of these strategies might apply.
A pdn article that gives a highlevel overview of some routing topics:
Pegasystems Inc.
JP
Are you looking for a routing algorythm that can balance the workload within a group of operators so nobody will complain that he/she gets loaded more than others?
Pegasystems Inc.
JP
Are you looking for a routing algorythm that can balance the workload within a group of operators so nobody will complain that he/she gets loaded more than others?
Financial Services
AU
Hi Chunzhi,
Yes I am looking at the routing algorithm so that no one complains that one gets more work than the other.
Sales teams are always after commission, we don't want to be in a situation where one finishes their current work and gets the next before its allocated to another person who didn't get any work at all. If that makes sense.
Thanks,
Jai
Financial Services
AU
Hi Chunzhi,
Yes I am looking at the routing algorithm so that no one complains that one gets more work than the other.
Sales teams are always after commission, we don't want to be in a situation where one finishes their current work and gets the next before its allocated to another person who didn't get any work at all. If that makes sense.
Thanks,
Jai
Pegasystems Inc.
JP
Basically, there are two routing strategies
Push: Routing to a specific operator, for example: approval should be doen by a manager.
Pull: Routing to a workbasket, operators get the assignment by clicking "Get Next Work" button, which implements assignment/operator mapping algorithm based on the factors like work urgency, required skills etc.
I believe in most situations, the second stragety "Pull from a workbasket by the will of oneself" is acceptable,
so what is going to be the limitation of this strategy in your specific situation?
Are sales teams fan of communism?
Pegasystems Inc.
JP
Basically, there are two routing strategies
Push: Routing to a specific operator, for example: approval should be doen by a manager.
Pull: Routing to a workbasket, operators get the assignment by clicking "Get Next Work" button, which implements assignment/operator mapping algorithm based on the factors like work urgency, required skills etc.
I believe in most situations, the second stragety "Pull from a workbasket by the will of oneself" is acceptable,
so what is going to be the limitation of this strategy in your specific situation?
Are sales teams fan of communism?