System and method for improving quality assurance process in contact centers

Patent metadata

Field	Value
Publication number	US-2023042350-A1
Application number	US-202117376565-A
Country	US
Kind code	A1
Filing date	Jul 15, 2021
Priority date	Jul 15, 2021
Publication date	Feb 9, 2023
Grant date	—

Abstract

Embodiments of the invention are directed to a computer-implemented system and method of performing quality assurance. The method may include receiving, by a processor, a quality plan comprising an expected number of evaluation tasks, wherein each evaluation task is distributed to an evaluator of a plurality of evaluators to be completed. For each evaluator, the processor computes an expected number of evaluation tasks to be completed per period, wherein the expected number of evaluation tasks completed per period is based on the expected number of evaluation tasks averaged over a set time period. The processor receives, for each evaluator, a number of actual evaluation tasks completed during the set time period and reassigns one or more evaluation tasks from the evaluator if the actual evaluation tasks completed during the set time period for said evaluator does not meet a predetermined threshold.

First claim

What is claimed is:

1 . A computer implemented method for performing quality assurance, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, a quality plan comprising an expected number of evaluation tasks, wherein each evaluation task is distributed to an evaluator of a plurality of evaluators to be completed; computing, by the processor, for each evaluator, an expected number of evaluation tasks completed per period, wherein the expected number of evaluation tasks completed per period is based on the expected number of evaluation tasks averaged over a set time period; receiving, by the processor, for each evaluator, a number of actual evaluation tasks completed during the set time period; and for each evaluator, reassigning, by the processor, one or more evaluation tasks from the evaluator if the actual evaluation tasks completed during the set time period for said evaluator does not meet a predetermined threshold value.

2 . The method of claim 1 , wherein the predetermined threshold value is a percent shortfall between the expected number of evaluation tasks completed per period over and the actual evaluation tasks completed during the set time period.

3 . The method of claim 1 , wherein reassigning the one or more evaluation tasks from the evaluator includes reassigning to a reserve pool of evaluators if an aggregate sum of reassignments is less than the percent shortfall.

4 . The method of claim 1 , wherein reassigning the one or more evaluation tasks from the evaluator includes using an adjustable buffer, wherein the buffer is an added percentage of the number of actual evaluation tasks completed during the set time period added to the number of actual evaluation tasks completed during the set time period.

5 . The method of claim 1 , wherein the method further comprising notifying and displaying the reassigning of the evaluation tasks in a graphical user interface.

6 . A computer implemented method for quality plan optimization, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, a quality plan comprising: a plurality of identifications of agents, each agent associated with one of a plurality of interactions, each identification of agent assigned an interactions count number, and a plurality of filters associated with a plurality of interactions; calculating, by the processor, for each identification of agent, a filtered number of interactions associated with said identification of agent; and if the filtered number of interactions is less than the interactions count number, adding, by the processor, the identification of agent to a list of agents not meeting the quality plan.

7 . The method of claim 6 , wherein calculating a filtered number of interactions further comprises filters selected by a brute force algorithm, the brute force algorithm comprising:
receiving, by the processor, the plurality of filters; calculating, by the processor, for each filter, the filtered number of interactions associated with each identification of agent; and if the filtered number of interactions for each filter is greater than the interactions count number, then adding, by the processor, the filter to the quality plan.

8 . The method of claim 7 , wherein if the filtered number of interactions for each filter is less than the interactions count number, then not adding, by the processor, the filter to the quality plan.

9 . A system for performing quality assurance, the system comprising:
a memory; a processor configured to: receive a quality plan comprising an expected number of evaluation tasks, wherein each evaluation task is distributed to an evaluator of a plurality of evaluators to be completed; compute for each evaluator, an expected number of evaluation tasks completed per period, wherein the expected number of evaluation tasks completed per period is based on the expected number of evaluation tasks averaged over a set time period; receive for each evaluator, a number of actual evaluation tasks completed during the set time period; and reassign, for each evaluator, one or more evaluation tasks from the evaluator if the actual evaluation tasks completed during the set time period for said evaluator does not meet a predetermined threshold value.

10 . The system of claim 9 , wherein the predetermined threshold value is a percent shortfall between the expected number of evaluation tasks completed per period over and the actual evaluation tasks completed during the set time period.

11 . The system of claim 9 , wherein the processor is configured to reassign the one or more evaluation tasks from the evaluator includes reassigning to a reserve pool of evaluators if an aggregate sum of reassignments is less than the percent shortfall.

12 . The system of claim 9 , wherein the processor is configured to reassign the one or more evaluation tasks from the evaluator includes using an adjustable buffer, wherein the buffer is an added percentage of the number of actual evaluation tasks completed during the set time period added to the number of actual evaluation tasks completed during the set time period.

13 . The system of claim 9 , wherein the processor is further configured to notify and display the reassigning of the evaluation tasks in a graphical user interface.

14 . A system for quality plan optimization, the system comprising:
a memory; and a processor configured to:
receive a quality plan comprising:
a plurality of identifications of agents, each agent associated with one of a plurality of interactions,
each identification of agent assigned an interactions count number, and
a plurality of filters associated with a plurality of interactions;
calculate for each identification of agent, a filtered number of interactions associated with said identification of agent; and
if the filtered number of interactions is less than the interactions count number, add the identification of agent to a list of agents not meeting the quality plan.

15 . The system of claim 14 , wherein the processor is configured to calculate a filtered number of interactions further comprises filters selected by a brute force algorithm, the brute force algorithm comprising:
receiving, by the processor, the plurality of filters; calculating, by the processor, for each filter, the filtered number of interactions associated with each identification of agent; and if the filtered number of interactions for each filter is greater than the interactions count number, then adding, by the processor, the filter to the quality plan.

16 . The system of claim 14 , wherein the processor is configured to not add the filter to the quality plan if the filtered number of interactions for each filter is less than the interactions count number.

17 . A computer implemented method for performing quality assurance, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, a quality plan comprising a number of interactions to be evaluated, wherein each interaction is to be completed by an evaluator; calculating, by the processor, for each evaluator, an interactions completion rate, wherein the interactions completion rate is the number of interactions to be evaluated averaged over a period of time; receiving, by the processor, for each evaluator, a number of actual completed interactions; and reassigning, by the processor, one or more interactions from an evaluator if the interactions completion rate for the evaluator does not meet a predetermined threshold value.

18 . The method of claim 17 , wherein the predetermined threshold

Assignees

• Nice Ltd

Inventors

• Mokashi Abhijit
• Hingne Onkar

Classifications

• G06Q10/063114 Primary

  Status monitoring or status determination for a person or group · CPC title

• G06Q10/06398 Primary

  Performance of employee with respect to a job function · CPC title