Of course. Look up Expected Wait Time (EWT) calculations in the ICM literature.

Regards,
Geoff

Thanks all,
It seems that there is no easy value to use, according to the documentation. The first sentence goes like this:

The Script Editor's built-in Minimum Expected Delay (MED) calculation does not apply to IPCC. Instead, you can use a formula ......
Janine, thanks for your example formula, but i think there must me a multiply sign instead of minus. Do you agree?
 
<font face="Times New Roman" size="2"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2">
((SkillGroup.%1%.RouterCallsQNow+1) -
(ValidValue(SkillGroup.%1%.AvgHandledCallsTimeTo5, 20))
/ Max ( SkillGroup.%1%.Ready, (SkillGroup.%1%.TalkingIn + SkillGroup.%1%.TalkingOut +SkillGroup.%1%.TalkingOther))))
</font></font><font face="Times New Roman" size="2">
 
</font>
 
 

Hi Mert,
Must've been my typo, yes if Bill agrees that multiplication is correct,
then I agree too.
Thanks, Janine

On 6/8/2011 8:02 AM, Cisco Developer Community Forums wrote:
> Mert Guray has created a new message in the forum "General Discussion
> - All Versions":
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks all,
> It seems that there is no easy value to use, according to the
> documentation. The first sentence goes like this:
>
> The Script Editor's built-in Minimum Expected Delay (MED) calculation
> does not apply to IPCC. Instead, you can use a formula ......
> Janine, thanks for your example formula, but i think there must me a
> *multiply sign instead of minus*. Do you agree?
> Â
> <font face="Times New Roman" size="2"><font face="Times New Roman"
> size="2">
> ((SkillGroup.%1%.RouterCallsQNow+1) *-
> *(ValidValue(SkillGroup.%1%.AvgHandledCallsTimeTo5, 20))
> / Max ( SkillGroup.%1%.Ready, (SkillGroup.%1%.TalkingIn +
> SkillGroup.%1%.TalkingOut +SkillGroup.%1%.TalkingOther))))
> </font></font><font face="Times New Roman" size="2">
> Â
> </font>
> Â
> Â
> --
> To respond to this post, please click the following link:
>
> <http://developer.cisco.com/web/cvp/forums/-/message_boards/view_message/4021597>
>
> or simply reply to this email.

--
Janine Graves

No problem I've got it. Thanks.

Hi Deniz,

This is interesting. How about minus current queue length to get the EWT in middle of the queue?

Thanks
James

Hi Paul,
For purposes of recalculating EWT, what is Cisco using as the formula
for EWT while a caller is waiting for callback? And is there any way to
modify this formula?
Thanks, Janine

On 8/30/2011 4:47 PM, Cisco Developer Community Forums wrote:
> Paul Antinori has created a new message in the forum "General
> Discussion - All Versions":
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> The problem we saw in the 8.0 release with EWT is that the callback
> time is fixed at the time when the caller initially enters the queue.
> That implementation does not dynamically update the callback time when
> the call center call handle rate changes, which renders the ccb
> feature less effective especially when the callback time is long.
> The enhancement in 8.5 release which is available as a patch, is that
> we can update the EWT (dequeue rate) for ALL of the calls in the CCB
> queue instead of for just the one call.
>
> The goal of the enhancement was to get the "average callback queue
> time" after a callback within an agreed service level (default is 1 min).
> We do not want to call back callers too early so that they would need
> to wait in queue for a long time.
> We also do not want to call back too late so that agents may be waiting.
> So we try get a large percentage of the calls handled within the
> service level SLA, and the remainder of the calls are falling outside
> this service level SLA, like a bell curve.
> The randomness of call handle time is outside the control of CVP, of
> course. It could be why you are seeing odd results with your testing.
> CVP customers could reduce the randomness of call handle time through
> business analysis such as separating calls for sales and technical
> supports into different queues.
> --
> To respond to this post, please click the following link:
>
> <http://developer.cisco.com/web/cvp/forums/-/message_boards/view_message/4431792>
>
> or simply reply to this email.

--
Janine Graves

Hi Paul,

Can we know in which version of UCCE/ICM this fix is available or what is the appropriate ES version to this fix?

Thanks!
-Sethu