Advanced Work Assignment with 1 Group assigned to Multiple Queues
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
06-18-2024 12:28 PM - edited 06-18-2024 12:29 PM
Hello!
We are looking to expand the use of AWA for our IT Service Desk. They are currently using it for assigning Chats (Interactions) that come in from Amazon Connect Chat. We are looking to expand it to include Incidents, Catalog Tasks, and non-chat based Interaction records.
Ideally, we would like to use 1 group (ITServiceDeskTier1) to route ALL the records and then use the Queues to determine the Agents to assign them to.
We will have the following Queues:
- Interactions created by the "Submit an IT Ticket" record producer
- Catalog Tasks created by the "Request Something Else" Catalog item
- Incidents created by a self-service tool deployed to our workstations
For sake of this post, let's consider the 3 new Queues above as "Non-Chat".
There is currently a queue for Interaction records created by the Amazon Connect Chat application and they are assigned to the ITServiceDeskTier1 group via an AWA and a designated queue. Let's call this "Chat"
The records I mention in 1-3 above are automatically assigned to the ITServiceDeskTier1 group via the respective workflow.
The Desk is managed in a way where Techs either work the "Chat" queue or the "Non-Chat" queues. Based on testing in my PDI, when an Agent is a member of a group that is associated with multiple queues, when they set their state to "Available" the tech becomes available for all Queues for which their group is associated with. There is no way for the Agent to select what Queue they are available for. Is this a correct conclusion?
Is it possible to accomplish assigning "Non-Chat" records to 1 set of agents within the ITServiceDeskTier1 group, and "chat" records to another set of Agents in the same group? There is a caveat where the Agents rotate responsibilities. Using Skills does not seem to be a solution, from what I gathered. I could be wrong though.
Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Please let me know if you have additional questions.
Regards,
Jeremy
