
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-16-2024 08:30 AM
Got a bit of a weird one. I enabled the wait time display on the walk-up portal for one location and then set about creating a load of interactions for that location and processing them in Agent Workspace to try and get the wait time to work.
It continued to read "0" ALL DAY.
When I looked at the scripted extension point called AWAQueueAverageWaitTimeExtPoint, I found a table called awa_work_item and, it seems that a work item record is created for every interaction. Fair enough.
The really weird part is that when I looked at these work items associated with the records I've been creating all day, they are listed against a different location. Not only that, but there are several different Walk-Up locations represented.
If I enable the Wait Time display for these locations then it actually displays a value.
Obviously, then, my question is WTF?? Why are these work items getting the wrong location value?
Solved! Go to Solution.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-16-2024 08:47 AM
OK. A bit of a relief to find that it's not as random as it seems.
The AWA sees each Walk-up location as an agent to which it can assign work items and so it's assigning the work items to queues based which "agent" it thinks has the most capacity currently. I guess I just need to turn off AWA for this service channel.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-12-2024 11:51 AM
I was having this same issue where the awa_work_item record was getting set to the wrong queue. After I updated all my Walk-up Locations to have the proper Work Item routing condition based on the proper location, each walk-up location was generating the correct awa_work_item record with the correct queue. Thanks for the great help.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-16-2024 08:47 AM
OK. A bit of a relief to find that it's not as random as it seems.
The AWA sees each Walk-up location as an agent to which it can assign work items and so it's assigning the work items to queues based which "agent" it thinks has the most capacity currently. I guess I just need to turn off AWA for this service channel.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-05-2024 04:40 AM
Hi Andrew
I am facing the same issue. Can you let me know if turning off AWA fixed this or did you try something else?
Thanks
Nikita Kale

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-11-2024 02:04 AM
Hey Nikita,
Is it cold in your little corner of the world?
When I realised the nature of AWA and how it saw each location as an assignment queue the I was able to configure it all properly. It's been a while since I did it and I was on a customers instance that I no longer have access to so I can't check it and see what I did.
If I remember correctly, the work item was being assigning based on the assignment rule in AWA so, if it saw that the "queue" (or location) had available capacity then it would assign the work item to it even if the queue was physically located in another place.
I've had a look in my PDI and I think it's these fields that determine where the item is assigned:
Once the work items were being assigned to the right locations, the wait time estimates updated properly per location.
I hope that helps.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-12-2024 11:51 AM
I was having this same issue where the awa_work_item record was getting set to the wrong queue. After I updated all my Walk-up Locations to have the proper Work Item routing condition based on the proper location, each walk-up location was generating the correct awa_work_item record with the correct queue. Thanks for the great help.