I am sick of making quotes

[Vic]

Hi, all,

I am getting fed up. I am getting fed up with preparing a quote from scratch everytime someone asks me for a uote for an inbound or outbound call center.

Customization is really cool, but the definition of customization is "modifying the standard", isn't it? Recently, I feel like I am reinventing the whole CTI call center from the bottom up.

So, I have an idea. What do you think about STANDARDIZING some of the designs? I know that Genesys is versatile and all, and in 90% of the call centers I have been so far, the layout is pretty much identical. Even the products are not that different.

For example, I am sick and tired of asking for a quote from a Siebel or SAP vendor each time I need one. I am sure most of the professional salesmen have the thing prepared, but so far I have not seen any! Many a time, when client asks us for a call center, we go out, ask them how they want to do it, and the answer is always WE ARE NOT SURE. So, I want to actually go to the first meeting prepared and armed with the different types of layouts and approximate costs. Aren't there any kind of templates out there that would do it for us? Not just Genesys, but the whole thing.

I think we should all huddle together and see if we can come up with the template to be used by all of us. What do you think?

Who is in?

[Tony Tillyer]

Hi Vic,

You would have probably expected a reply from me!

Genesys is by design a centralized technology not necessarily platform dependant, not Switch dependant, certainly not dB dependant and the OS aspect is also very versatile. All of this before you even consider what Solutions are required...

I would like to contribute but I'm afraid it would look more like a shopping list than a template. However, Genesys have prepared a template for sizing a project (I seem to remember from my 6.5 training). That's as good a place as any to start the ball rolling...

HTH?

Tony

[Vic]

Well,

I think we can break it apart into the following categories:

PBX, PBX peripherals, CTI, and CRM

PBX:
Avaya G3, Avaya 8700, Nortel Opt11C, NEC 3400 and 7400 for example.

CTI:

Genesys Inbound
Genesys Outbound

CRM:
Siebel , ...

PBX peripherals:
IVR (BrookTrout?)
Voice logger: Nice Log

and make it into matrix for 50, 100, 200, 300 and so on seats


for each one, prepare a sample design layout and so it would be easy for us to standardize it.

Genesys is based on customization, but it is also based on a lot of things that are the same. Starting with HW, network and PBX, the basic configuration should not vary too much.

Plus, it would be easier for all of us at Genesys community if we had somewhat unified layout to fall back on.

Now, if someone would release a freesource softphone and IVR driver!

Any volunteers for that?

[Sidney]

Building a standard template I think will be difficult, since every organization thinks different, even if at the end the solution is very similar among all of them.

I would like to differentiate between Genesys costs, and hardware, database, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc costs.

As someone referred, there is a very good Sizing Guide (available @ www.genesyslab.com) that helps a lot with hardware and databases and general guidelines about call center size, architecture, etc.

IMHO that document is a very good start that can help with quotes. But remember, quoting the whole call center is still a process that has to be tailored to the customer.

Maybe a quote for a brand new call center can be prefabricated, but at least for me, that is not my experience. Usually Genesys is coming on top of an already built telecom infrastructure. Even if you can put in place brand new hardware to support Genesys, we still have to deal with backend systems, data interfaces, etc, etc, etc.

And, we are lucky is we have the opportunity to build a VRU (hopefully GVP) from scratch, because quoting implementations based on existing VRU, and doing the actual implementation, can be a daunting task.

eg. Customer wants to implement skill based routing, but VRU don't even ask about language. Now you got to quote a VRU redesign/redevelopment, and this is just the beginning ....

[Rory]

I agree with Vic.

If the cost of the overall solution was less because a standard template was used which provided 80% of what was required out of the box then I think you would get a better buy in.

Especially as your selling points (and always the high risk points from the business aspect) would be known delivery times, proven configuration, etc.

Rory

[Vic]

Rory!!!
Have not heard from you in ages!!! How are you, dude?

I say we standardize Genesys layout and get rid of all that flexibility it maybe a selling point for Genesys Labs but it is nightmare for the sales and enduser. I think this flexibility should be known fby vendor and not enduser. Enduser should only see the package and ot the darn options!

Who is with me?

[Rory]

Hey Vic, I'm still kicking about out in the ether...

Where to start with standardisation? Is there a definitive listing of all the settings, and how these would relate to partular configuration?

Rory

[Vic]

Rory,

my sweet dear friend and comrade in arms (and pain? )!

I think, the first thing to do is to come up with a template for NEW call centers.
I am thinking about a simple matrix listing the equipment necessary vs. the functionality and size.

Here is a thought:
break the call centers into categories such as inbound, outbound and blended.
Then for every category, create different sizes: 50, 100, 200, 500 and above.

Ok, the easy part is over!
Next step is to get everyone agree to limit the scope of the hardware to be used! I am already hearing a collective "what the f*ck!". But, let's settle down for a second and think about this:

why is all the flexibility necessary? To be able to squeeze Genesys into any environment you might ever consider. This is good for Genesys, but then again, they do not have to do all the quoting all the time. I think it is time to stop advertising Genesys and put it where it belongs into the box and away from sight. (I think Genesys sales will kill me for this).

Let me compare Genesys to Windows XP :
new company is started and they need an accounting package. Your accounting package (PeachTree? ) is running on Windows XP. Do you care about all the different layers implemented into Windows architecture? Yes, kind of. But it is not important to the client. They need to do accounting so why should they worry about WinSock in Windows XP or how the keyboard driver operates? All they see is: PC and PeachTree screen that allows them to enter data.

And Genesys is not even Windows XP in that example but one tiny function.

So, the point is:

call center needs functionality that is very abstract: call logging, voice recognition, route calls to agents, see reporting, and so on.

So, why not just focus on the abstraction layer ? Forget about all the different variants of PBX and CTI and so on and let's focus on the main three or four possible choices? Customization means "varying from default".

Standardization is the main reason for Genesys success. Unfortunately, Genesys CTI is standardized only from inside. So, let's take the next logical step and standardize the whole offering? No more solutions. People get a box with all the necessary stuff inside that can do MOST of the things they need. AND THEN, if they want, they can customize it. Would it not be better for all of us?

The easiest way to focus on the abstract functionality is to limit the hardware offering. I know a lot of vendors would not be happy, but, guys, we all know that 99.9% of the functionality can be offered by whicever product and we are spending 99& of our time on the last 0.1%, which if you think about it can be accomplished with any product out there anyway. I do not mean to start an ugly argument here. If did, please ignore it, for it was not my goal.

I just think we need to stop using three hundred different types of PBXs and IVRs and so on just to fulfill the last 0.1%. And I want to do it in order to make life easier for both us and our enduser. We need to learn how to say "No, it cannot be done" because in most cases there is a reason why this functionality is not there.

So, without further adieu, how about defining PBXs, IVRs and voice recorders to be user for different types of call centers and then seeing if we can limit it even more?

For PBXs, how about sticking with the biggest three or four for all the new call centers? Avaya, Nortel, NEC and Rockwell? IVR: BrookTrout and CSS? Logger: Nice?

Any thoughts?