Hi, guys,
it has been two years since I have asked this question and based on my experience so far, here is how I see it when it comes to GVP 7.6
[u]GVP is Unstable[/u]
Yes, a lot of work has been put into it in recent years, and it is better than nothing or previous Genesys attempts. I, nevertheless, have to tell you that customer is not getting the value he/she paid for it when they get GVP: they might as well go with pretty much every other major product and have exactly the same thing and probably much more stable. GVP's lack of serious redundancy right away makes it stand out in otherwise very rounded and thought out environment. Its dependence on third-party products reminds me of ICS when you needed Hipbone to run it: how many times did you have service fail because "watchdog is down" error?
[u]GVP is Not Part of Genesys CTI[/u]
Yes, you heard me right. Everything from GUI (is it what we call) to its log format remind me of a something like Virtual Hold a few years back (I have not touched it lately). A rushedly put together product by people with no background in Genesys. For example, Genesys has a history of spanning user interfaces through out the products, and failure to use IRD for GVP-related flows is inexcusable. Lack of tight integration with any other Genesys product, inability to draw on the learning curve of other Genesys application and failure to virtualize basic logic flows inherent to any workflow engine is disturbing. By ignoring to standardize and virtualize the logic and basic GVP workflows, this product fails to allow existing Genesys users to rely on their programming experience with URS. Let's not forget usability: have you tried to modify logic, you know that you are only being able to do it by launching what seems to be very simple MFC-based NOTEPAD from within Script Editor. And god forbid you want to do it by modifying the underlying .jsp pages directly - GVP will ignore it. What is the point of creating a .jsp file if modifying it on the fly is not supported?
[u]GVP fails to fit into Genesys SIP Architecture[/u]
I know many of you will disagree on this one, but I really do not see GVP as a viable option when it comes to Genesys SIP. Genesys SIP already includes URS and Stream Manager by default. Both of them have redundancy, support load sharing, and have a very nice interface: IRD. This interface has been improved on generations of products and tens of thousands of Genesys users are familiar with it. We are talking about both VARs as well as end-users. When we are talking workflows, IRD has a great way to visualize it, make it presentable. And, after spending thousands of hours training Genesys SIers and end-users on how to use it, how much sense does it make to teach them how to program in ASP or JSP? I for one would rather implement everything in URS+SM, and if there is some reason to interface it with ASR or TTS or some other third-party product, would either use DB or CustomServer to accomplish this. Of course, we are talking about me here.
Overall, at the end of the day, I am honestly disappointed with the product. Yes, 8.1 looks great, and yes, it seems to be going in the right direction, but once again, I wonder why there are overlapping products where one has a long and succesful track record, ability to integrate with other products and user recognition and other one very similar to Asterisks, and Genesys is touting Asterisk one. It is counterproductive, cost-ineffective and down-right dangerous.
At least this what I think. After both selling and supporting GVP. If Genesys wants SIP to succeed they should concentrate their efforts on figuring out how remove Genesys SIP dependence on third-party VoIP GWs and not herd users toward learning how to program in JSP.
