What do we want Genesys to Change

[victor]

Dear all,

over the past few days there were several threads regarding Genesys license, Genesys PS, and discontent for overall quality latest Genesys products. I like Genesys products and I am a vigorous proponent of its technology. I am sure that many of you like me and have dedicated our whole career to working with their products.

I do, however, feel that Genesys has taken a series of missteps that are starting to undermine the company's dominance in CTI market (can you say VTH?  or Genesys Express) and I get a feeling that Genesys is either blissfully unaware of it or is neglecting or unable to address this due to its uncertain place inside Alcatel-Lucent.

Many of us depend on Genesys for our livelihood and it is in our best interests to ascertain what the problems are so that we can present it to Genesys in a clear and concise manner. I hope that this will motivate Genesys enough to address the issues in a manner that not only sounds good (Better Interactions), but also does some good as well.

Please post your thoughts about what you think Genesys needs to address, what the problems you are facing, and what are some of the things you would want Genesys to fix. I am hoping that this will not only generate a healthy and productive discussion with Genesys but also allow us to come up with some temporary measures in a meantime.

Sincerely,
Vic

[Adam G.]

Two words Tech Support.

There seems to be a lack of techies to actually solve the problems. There are lots of 'managers' to try help the problems but in reality they just slow the process down.

The other experiance I have noticed is that if Genesys are going to support a 3rd party product then maybe they should get some TS staff with those skills (think Hyperion).

[mark]

- More security within objects in CME
would be a start from me.

[tony]

I have to say that mine is firstly [b]my own opinion [/b] and secondly probably does not fit everyone here but it is, in my honest opinion, true of larger corporations;

I've seen Genesys Product Managers working very hard at many levels for renewals and beefing up current agreements, pushing up the profit margins across the board.  For me (us?), that means;


   Licensing of products through International Agreements.
   Licensing of (the same?) products through Programme Agreements.
   Licensing of (the same?) products through Project Agreements.
   Licensing of (the same?) products through National Agreements.


To be honest, the way this has been approached I believe that corporations rarely have a handle on the bigger picture.  The organization (certainly an oxymoron) is happy to shell out per instance, per agreement, per project and Genesys will smile sweetly and sell you what is essentially money for old rope.

What to do?  For starters, define, amalgamate and consolidate agreements between enttities within your  corporation, so that a full scope of licensing agreements are available to the whole of the organization (that word again!).  After that, you can look at cost saving using various methods...

It's only a matter of time before one of the larger telcos who are heavy users of Genesys stand up and checks out what is being paid for, by whom and where.  Then it will become *very* obvious that we are not only paying through the nose but paying through 2 or 3 noses!

What am I saying? Genesys will not tell you if you have overpaid for the licensing of a product? Possibly - but that does not mean that they do or do not know that - it just means their organization (!) may also be disjointed...

Tony

[S]

Better version control on the strategies, better debugging in strategies, better compilations( atleast for showing error when a business rule is not connected to anything on a green port)
Better object access permissions
more later ...

[Ali]

Here it comes from my side:

- more detailed development documents;
- open libraries and programmes for Genesys developers.

Let me explain what I mean with the word "programmes". For example, prior to releasing a product, Microsoft keeps informing (MSDN) developers with product updates and CDs. So, based on this context, Genesys should have a friendly Developer strategy. If we as Genesys-engineers could evaluate alpha or beta versions of their solutions, I think, it would be great.

[size=8pt]P.S. Btw, Marco (ma cat) came back to home. He found me...[/size]

[Sylvainsjc]

Implementation of web applications for management (config manager and other gui).
a basic Web management also for a basic routing database.
a basic Web management for historical reporting (and real time ?).
Build strategies that will not end with "distribute event" but with "answered event" to control the agents no answer...
This to avoid making pay to the customer customisations not always necessary

[Mike Kamlet]

Actually Genesys has some of these things all ready.

They have run several formal Beta programs on various new applications.  We are currently working with Genesys on their Federated architecture and validating their proxy application.

In terms of web-based interfaces, they have one developed that provides a web-interface for CME and routing (basic routing functions).  I have yet to see a roadmap for that piece.

I just wish they'd fix reporting....

[Michael]

How about more open DB schemas? WFM enhancements. Call treatment solutions other than VTO. Reducing licensing costs and streamlining licensing processes. Updateable DMA layouts. I'm sure there's more but these are my sore points.

[cavagnaro]

[quote]How about more open DB schemas?[/quote]  There are documents explaining this.

[quote]WFM enhancements.[/quote]
Like.....

[quote]Call treatment solutions other than VTO.[/quote]
You mean GVP? Third Party IVR...this is an option already

[quote]Updateable DMA layouts[/quote]
You can update them...

[Peter]

Cav,

you are a bit harsh on a guy. I think he has a point here.

DB schemas: CME,ODS and WFM tables are not open. Datamart tables are marginally accessible.

WFM Enhancement: poor integration with outbound and inbound (one icon in IRD?) as well as reporting. Third-party look and feel, lack of wizards to guide the setup process, real-time compliance reporting in WFM is a beast of its own.

Other than VTO Treatment solution: relying on Dialogic is sooo passe. VTO/GVP/CPD are a concept ten-years too old. 500 seat multi-site call center implementation do not mix well with modem cards (Dialogic)

Documentation: I have yet to see How-To documentation. SDK documentation is a joke. No practical guides. Deployment guides do not even cut close to being useful when it comes to actual deployment. Every option needs to be tested and then re-tested again before deciding what works and what doesn't. And this is 10 years since Avaya or Nortel started offering m-Link or MAPD.

I agree with you that some of the posts might be misleading, but the fact is this is an actual Genesys user or vendor who paid money for the license and installation or is involved with using this software. Even if there is documentation out there, as long as he is not aware of it, as far as I am concerned that documentation might as well be non-existent.

What do you say?

Michael: Cav made some valid point in his reply - post a message and see if some of your problems can be resolved with what is available over there. 

Peter (Pandas are imported meat!)

[cavagnaro]

Well about DB Schemas i can't say anything for WFM as i'm just going to see it on NOvember...but for CME, it's documented how they interact, and even not, first time i saw them was not that hard to understand wich table stands and relationships with another.
For ODS can say the same thing, really on first sight you can't understand the names and why of this or the other, however once you took training on them ODS and DataMart tables become more understandable.

I do agree on SDK documentation, almost everything has to be done on test and try.

For GVP, you have two flavors, Dialogic and SIP, i also agree that dialogic will be ended replaced by SIP, however you can use SIP right now and make it all work.

Now, for CPD the use of dialogic is a must until the PSTN becames SIP/H323 or similar...

[Adam G.]

[quote author=Sylvainsjc link=topic=2518.msg9705#msg9705 date=1192623561]
....
a basic Web management also for a basic routing database.
....
[/quote]

This exists, but to an advanced level - I did it 4 years ago. Basically the Users get access to an intranet site where they can change the routing in real time and IRD stays with the people that should have access to it - the techies.

Pavel

[Sylvainsjc]

Yes i know. For my projects, i propose this easy (and controlled) way to change routing parameters instead of no controlled configuration options in CME.
But it cost time and money for the customer which does not understand why those basic things are not delivered basic with Genesys software