Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. If you'd prefer to explore, try our test area to get started. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

Logout non-activity time-needed more than 7200 seconds

Hi All, our customer wants to measure attendance time for his employees according to logged-in time within IPCC (it is SIPCC and CTIOS toolkit agent desktop client).

The problem is that some of his agents sometimes dont want to accept calls for a while - so they change their status to "not-ready" status and they want this status to be automatically changed to "logged-out" after 12 hours. But administration web allows you to set up maximum of 7200 seconds (2 hours) or to turn of this funcionality.

Doesnt somebody know how to prolong this time somehow?

Thanks a lot.

Everyone's tags (1)
2 REPLIES
Green

Re: Logout non-activity time-needed more than 7200 seconds

This comes up with a few customers, but it is a horrible match and you end up with the worst of both worlds. There are better ways to measure "attendance time" than being logged into CTIOS.

Being "not ready" for long periods is not a good idea, in my opinion. Best to log out, with a suitable log out reason. You'll have to track attendance with another tool.

It really is best to preserve "not ready" for short durations. I prefer to have the agents log out when going on morning and afternoon breaks, and of course lunch, team meetings and so on. I want Supervisors to know that an agent in the "not ready" state will be back very soon - they can bank on it. I'm not in favour of "not ready" reasons - but am in favour of log out reasons.

I know - everyone has their own ideas on this.

As far as extending the "inactivity timer" beyond 7200s, I don't think it's possible.

Regards,

Geoff

Silver

Re: Logout non-activity time-needed more than 7200 seconds

edit: nevermind missed something in the original post

887
Views
0
Helpful
2
Replies