 |
Description  |
|
|
TECHNICAL FIELD
The present invention relates generally to telecommunications and more
particularly to a method for distributing telephone calls or other
messages among multiple possible destinations.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Telephone call centers that handle calls to toll-free "800" numbers are
well-known in the art. Typically, a company may have many call centers,
all answering calls made to the same set of 800 numbers. Each of the
company's call centers usually has an automatic call distributor (ACD) or
similar equipment capable of queuing calls. ACD management information
systems keep statistics on agent and call status, and can report these
statistics on frequent intervals. Such capabilities are in use today for
centralized reporting and display of multi-location call center status.
In such systems, the company will want to distribute the calls to its call
centers in a way that will optimally meet its business goals. Those goals
might include low cost of call handling, answering most calls within a
given amount of time, providing customized handling for certain calls, and
many others. It is also known in the prior art that certain call routing
criteria and techniques support a broad range of business goals. These
include "load balancing," "caller segmentation" and "geographic routing."
Load balancing refers to distribution of calls so that the expected answer
delay for new calls is similar across all the call centers. If other
considerations do not dictate otherwise, load balancing is desirable
because it provides optimum efficiency in the use of agents and
facilities, and it provides the most consistent grade of service to
callers. In special situations it might be desirable to unbalance the load
in a particular way, but control over the distribution of call load is
still desired.
If the caller's identity can be inferred from the calling number,
caller-entered digits, or other information, that identity may influence
the choice of destination for the call. Call routing based on such
information is referred to as caller segmentation. Also, it has been found
desirable for particular call centers to handle calls from particular
geographic areas. The motivation may be to minimize call transport costs,
to support pre-defined call center "territories", or to take advantage of
agents specifically trained to handle calls from given locations. Such
techniques are known as geographic routing.
The interexchange carriers who provide 800 service today generally support
some form of "routing plan" to help achieve load balancing, caller
segmentation and geographic routing. Typically these routing plans allow
800 call routing based on time of day, day of week, the caller's area
code, caller-entered digits, and fixed percentage allocations.
Predominately, however, the routing plans supported by the carriers are
static in the sense that they do not automatically react to unexpected
variations in incoming call volume or distribution, nor to actual call
delays being experienced at each destination. Reaction to changing
conditions is done via manual modification of the plan, on a time scale of
minutes or hours.
Recent service offerings from some interexchange carriers offer some degree
of automatic reaction to changing conditions. One such offering, called
"alternate termination sequence" or "ATS" (from AT&T), allows customers to
establish maximum numbers of calls to be queued for each destination, with
a pre-defined alternative when a primary destination is overloaded.
Another offering, referred to as "intelligent routing control" or "IRC"
(from MCI), allows an ACD to refuse a call from the network, again
resulting in pre-defined alternative call handling. A third kind of
service, AT&T's Intelligent Call Processing, lets the interexchange
network pass call-by-call data to a computer.
While these service offerings offer certain advantages over more
conventional call routing, they have significant deficiencies. Such
offerings do not provide for complex routing schemes based on comparative
delay times, call center service level commitments or other similar
considerations. These systems do not offer the user the opportunity in a
straightforward way to create rules that define constraints and/or
preferences for determining individual call routing. Many do not function
effectively in case of data outages from one or more destinations. Such
prior art systems are incapable of anticipating changes in staffing and
redistributing load in anticipation of such changes. These systems are
also prone to user errors and are difficult to use.
There has therefore been a long-felt need in the telephone call routing art
to overcome these and other deficiencies of the prior art and to provide
an efficient rules-based call routing scheme that can be implemented
throughout the telephone network.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
It is an object of the present invention to provide a method for
distributing telephone calls or other messages among multiple possible
destinations.
It is a further object of the invention to provide such a call distribution
method using a novel decision procedure for determining the routing of an
individual call and one or more rules that enable users to describe
constraints and preferences for the decision procedure.
It is another object of the invention then to provide a rules-based
telephone call routing method that has significant advantages over prior
art techniques. The decision procedure is better able to anticipate
changes in staffing and to distribute load in anticipation of such
changes. By using a rules-based approach according to the invention,
complex routing based on delay times, call center service level
commitments and other considerations are supported with fewer routing
instructions.
It is yet a further object of the invention to provide improved call
routing techniques wherein routing plans are shorter, less complex, less
error-prone and more self-documenting as compared to prior art methods and
systems.
It is another specific object of the invention to provide call routing
based on multiple routing goals without requiring forecasts of incoming
call characteristics.
Still another object of the invention is to implement "soft" routing
preferences such as geographic routing preferences subject to limits on
percentage routing imbalance. According to the invention, percentage
routing or other load balancing techniques are implemented whether
destinations handle calls from one or multiple telephone numbers.
It is still another object to provide such rules-based call routing in
various types of telephone systems includes telephone switches supporting
external call control interfaces, telephone networks supporting a
call-by-call routing interface to computing equipment on customer
premises, telephone networks internally using Signaling System 7 ("SS7")
or other means for call routing transaction processing, and any other
telephone switch or network in which the inventive method could be
incorporated into new or existing software systems.
It is a more specific object of the invention to describe a rules-based
call routing method which takes advantage of certain information, to the
extent such information is available in the network. Such information
comprises "status data," which refers to information about the current or
recent status of potential call destinations, and "planning data," which
refers to information about expected future changes in the status of
potential call destinations. The method may be implemented whether or not
status data is available from the destinations.
According to the preferred embodiment, the present invention describes a
method, using a call processor, for distributing telephone calls among
multiple call center destinations in a telephone network. The telephone
network includes a switch connectable to the call processor and each of
the multiple call center destinations for routing a call to a destination
selected by the call processor. The method begins by generating a routing
plan comprising one or more rules that control how calls are to be
distributed among the multiple call center destinations. For each call to
be distributed, the rules in the routing plan are executed for a set of
valid destinations until a destination for the call has been selected or
until all rules have been executed. If all rules have been executed and
multiple valid destinations remain, the multiple valid destinations are
then processed to select a destination for the call.
Generally, the rules include "constraints" that eliminate one or more
destinations from the set of valid destinations eligible to handle the
call, and "preferences" for biasing one or more call center destinations
over other call center destinations. If current call center statistics are
available to the call routing processor, the method optionally calculates
an estimated answer delay for one or more of the call center destinations.
In such case, the processing of the multiple valid destinations comprises
selecting the destination having a shortest estimated answer delay after
the estimated answer delays for all destinations have been modified as
directed by the routing plan rules.
In certain situations, call center statistics may not be available to the
call routing processor. In such case it is desirable to assign each of the
call center destinations a predetermined initial target percentage of
calls, which percentages may vary by day of week and time of day. In this
embodiment, processing of the multiple valid destinations comprises
selecting the destination having a largest deficit or smallest surplus of
recently routed calls as compared to initial target percentages after the
initial target percentages for all destinations have been modified as
directed by the routing plan rules.
The foregoing has outlined some of the more pertinent objects of the
present invention. These objects should be construed to be merely
illustrative of some of the more prominent features and applications of
the invention. Many other beneficial results can be attained by applying
the disclosed invention in a different manner or modifying the invention
as will be described. Accordingly, other objects and a fuller
understanding of the invention may be had by referring to the following
Detailed Description of the preferred embodiment.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
For a more complete understanding of the present invention and the
advantages thereof, reference should be made to the following Detailed
Description taken in connection with the accompanying drawings in which:
FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a telecommunications network having a switch
connected between a call routing processor and multiple call centers that
receive calls routed according to the teachings of the present invention;
FIG. 2 is a flowchart describing the decision routine of the present
invention;
FIG. 3 is a flowchart describing the estimated delay routine of the
invention.
Similar reference characters refer to similar parts or steps throughout the
several views of the drawings.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
The present invention describes an improved method for distributing
telephone calls or other messages among multiple possible destinations.
According to the invention, a novel decision procedure, described below,
determines the routing of an individual call. A user of the invention
creates so-called "rules" to define constraints and/or preferences that
control the actions of the decision procedure. Preferably, rules are
created using an English-like syntax. The mechanism for rules creation can
be a standard text editor or word processing program, or it can be a
specialized text processing program that enforces the syntax requirements
of the rules.
Each rule generally contains a conditions portion and an actions portion.
The conditions portion can reference such information as time of day, day
of week, calling number information, caller-entered digits, estimated call
delays (in a network ACD application) and call classifications provided in
real time by cooperating applications. Straightforward extensions of
existing rules can include other condition information obtained from ACD's
or other external sources. Each action preferably has one of two effects.
It can eliminate one or more destinations from the list of those eligible
to handle the call, or it can add or subtract a "bias" value to (i)
estimated answer delays at one or more destinations (where call center
statistics are available to the call routing processor) or (ii) initial
target routing percentages for each of the destinations (where call center
statistics are not available to the call routing processor).
The invention is implemented within a switching network or on separate
computing equipment that communicates to the switching network via data
facilities. As seen in FIG. 1, a representative telecommunications
switching system or network 10 includes a logically separate call routing
processor 12 on which the various software routines of the invention are
supported. The call routing processor is connected to a switch 14. The
switch 14 in turn is connectable to one or more call center destinations
16a. . . 16n in a conventional manner. The switch 14 is responsible for
directing an incoming call to a particular destination 16. For each call
received by switch 14, a query is sent from the switch to the call routing
processor to determine which call center destination should receive the
call. The call routing processor processes the request (based on the
teachings of the present invention) and notifies the switch 14 of the
result. The switch then routes the call to the selected destination.
The switch is conventional and forms no part of the present invention.
Although not meant to be limiting, preferably the call routing processor
is a general purpose computer running a suitable operating system. The
present invention is preferably implemented in software supported on the
call routing processor and is useful where the following conditions are
met: (i) for each call to be routed (or for each member of a subset of
calls to be directly controlled), relevant information (for example,
called number, calling number, additional caller-entered digits if any)
about the call can be made available by the network to the processor
quickly enough to be used in deciding call routing, and (ii) the network
is capable of receiving commands from the processor to direct disposition
of the call. Examples of such systems which could constitute the network
in the above descriptions include telephone switches supporting external
call control interfaces (e.g., AT&T's Advanced Switch-Application
Interface, Northern Telecom's Switch-Computer Application Interface and
others), telephone networks supporting a call-by-call routing interface to
computing equipment on customer premises (e.g., AT&T's Intelligent Call
Processing service), telephone networks internally using Signaling System
7 or other means for call routing transaction processing, and any other
telephone switch or network in which the algorithms to be described could
be incorporated into new or existing software.
Besides the above basic call information and control capabilities, the call
routing technique of the invention takes advantage of additional
information, to the extent that it is available. This information
comprises "status data" and "planning data". Status data refers to
information about the current or recent status of potential call
destinations; it might include, for example, data about the number of
calls queued, the number of calls routed to the destination during a
predetermined time interval (e.g., the last 5 minutes), the number of
agents available to answer calls, and the average handling time for calls.
Planning data refers to information about the "configuration" of the call
centers as well as information about expected future changes in the status
of potential call destinations; it might include, for example, times of
day throughout the week the destination is "open" to receive calls,
relative call-handling capacity by time interval and day of week (such
numbers are "relative" to all other destinations for a particular customer
and may be thought of as the "percentage routing" allocations for the
destination), the default average handle time for calls at this
destination, work schedules for agents and planned downtime for
communications equipment.
The call routing decision procedure of the invention can now be described.
The procedure uses a given set of compiled rules, status data (if
available) from possible call destinations, and planning data (if
available). The procedure is invoked when a call arrives from the network.
It produces a destination for the call. The mechanism by which the network
switch 14 is instructed by the call routing processor to route the call to
the desired destination is dependent on the particular network's external
control capabilities.
The decision procedure comprises a number of steps. Based on the number
called, the method obtains a starting list of valid destinations and the
previously-created routing plan data (comprising the rules).
Alternatively, the routing plan itself includes a rule (having no
conditions) that identifies or includes the list of valid destinations.
Typically the list includes any destination mentioned in any rule of a
particular rule set. The rules in the routing plan are then executed until
a unique destination has been selected or until all rules have been
executed. The remaining valid destinations are then processed to select
the best one.
In particular, in a first embodiment of the invention it is assumed that
the call routing processor has available to it current status data from
the call center destinations. In this embodiment, it is desirable for the
call routing processor to calculate (as will be described below) an
estimated answer delay for the call center destinations. Further, one or
more rules may include timing preferences (e.g., "If the call originates
from the West Coast, prefer Los Angeles by ten seconds"). Because of such
preferences, when the rules in the routing plan are executed, one or more
of the estimated answer delays for the set of remaining valid destinations
may be modified. The call routing processor then determines which of the
remaining valid destinations has the shortest modified estimated answer
delay. The processor then notifies the switch to send the call there.
For example, assume the set of valid destinations includes Chicago, New
York and Los Angeles and that the estimated answer delay for each is 14
seconds, 15 seconds and 20 seconds, respectively. Assume further that one
of the rules includes the above preference where calls originating from
the West Coast are biased by 10 seconds. When this rule is executed, the
estimated answer delay for Los Angeles is modified and becomes 10 seconds
(because the estimated answer delay of 20 seconds is reduced by the 10
second preference). Thus an incoming call from the West Coast will be
routed to Los Angeles even though Chicago technically has a shorter
estimated answer delay.
The call routing processor preferably keeps track of the bias values for
all valid destinations as each new call routing request is received from
the switch. As each request is received, the processor sets the bias
values for all valid destinations to zero. If a rule mandates a timing
preference, the value is added to a running sum for the valid
destination(s). The timing preference may be positive or negative. After
the rules are executed, the set of modified estimated answer delays for
the valid destinations is analyzed and the shortest estimated answer delay
is identified. The destination with this delay is selected to receive the
call.
The rules may also include special conditions such as "select" or "avoid."
For example, it may be desirable to select a specific call center
destination for certain types of calls requiring specialized agents. It
might likewise be desirable to avoid certain call center destinations
where trainee agents are located.
In another embodiment of the invention, it is assumed that the call routing
processor does not have available to it current call center statistics.
This may occur either because the call center do not have the capability
of providing status data to the processor or because such data becomes
unavailable to the processor for some reason. In such case it is desirable
to assign each of the call center destinations a predetermined initial
target percentage of calls, which percentages may vary by day of week and
time of day. Further, one or more rules may include routing percentage
preferences (e.g., "If the call originates from the West Coast, prefer Los
Angeles by 2%"). Because of such preferences, when the rules in the
routing plan are executed, one or more of the initial target routing
percentages may be modified. The call routing processor then determines
which of the remaining valid destinations is farthest from achieving its
target percentage (which may have been modified by a rule) for calls
routed during a predetermined recent time period. The call center with the
largest deficit or smallest surplus (with respect to the target
percentage) of recently routed calls is the farthest from achieving its
(initial or modified) target percentage. The call routing processor then
selects that call center to receive the call.
Thus according to either embodiment, after the rules are executed for each
call, any remaining valid destinations are filtered through a process
(which is essentially a load balancing algorithm) to select the
destination. The rules function to add or subtract a "bias" value to (i)
estimated answer delays at the destinations or (ii) target routing
percentages for the destinations. In either case, it is possible that
execution of the rules (or a portion thereof) will result in a single call
center destination, in which case it becomes unnecessary to perform the
further processing described above.
Rules are processed one at a time, in a fixed sequence. For each rule, the
rule conditions are evaluated using status data when available, and
information about the call passed from the network. If all conditions for
a given rule are satisfied, the action portion of that rule is performed.
As noted above, rules are executed until all candidate destinations except
one have been eliminated or until all rules have been processed. If, after
all rules have been executed, more than one destination is still eligible
to receive a call, then a destination selection routine is implemented. A
destination selection routine for use when estimated answer delays are
available is described in the flowchart of FIG. 2.
The routine begins with the selection of a destination from a list of
remaining candidates. At step 20, the first destination on the list is
selected provisionally. Each remaining destination is then compared with
the provisional selection to see if it is superior; if so, it becomes the
provisional selection. The comparison uses the following procedure. Assume
"A" represents the provisional selection and "B" represents the candidate
being compared. At step 22, the routine calculates the expected relative
percentage of calls routed to A and B based on staffing information
obtained from staff planning software or other sources. At step 24, the
routine calculates the actual relative percentage of calls routed during
the past 10 minutes (or other time interval) to each destination. The
routine continues at step 26 to test whether there is current call delay
estimate data from either A or B. If not, the routine continues at step 28
and chooses the one that has the lowest ratio of actual percentage routed
to expected percentage routed.
If there is current call delay estimate data from B but not from A, the
routine continues at step 30 to choose A if its actual percentage routed
is less than its expected percentage of recent calls routed (as calculated
in step 22); otherwise the routine continues at step 32 and chooses B. On
the other hand, if there is current call delay estimate data from A but
not from B, the routine continues at step 34 to choose B if its actual
percentage routed is less than its expected percentage of recent calls
routed (as calculated in step 22); otherwise, the routine continues at
step 36 and chooses A. If there is current call delay data from both A and
B, and only one has an estimated delay of zero (i.e. has currently
available agents), the routine continues at step 38 to choose that one. If
there are current call delay estimates from both A and B, and both
destinations have an estimated delay of zero (i.e. both have agents free),
the routine continues at step 40 to choose the one that has the highest
ratio of free agents to logged-in agents. If there is current call delay
data from both A and B, and neither has an estimated delay of zero, the
routine continues at step 42 and modifies the call delay estimates for A
and B by the number of bias seconds indicated by the rules that were
executed and then select the one with the lowest modified delay estimate.
As noted above, each remaining destination is then compared with the
provisional selection to see if it is superior; if so, it becomes the
provisional selection. After all remaining destinations are processed in
this manner, the last remaining provisional selection becomes the selected
destination.
Referring now to FIG. 3, a flowchart is described on the preferred routine
for calculating "estimated answer delay" data. As noted above, this
routine is used where call statistics are available from one or more of
the call centers. The estimate answer delay data may also be used by one
or more rules (as a condition). The routine begins at step 44 by computing
an expected total call routing percentage for each destination that is
proportional to the number of agents at each destination. The number of
agents can be obtained from status data. Planning data may be used when
status data is unavailable for one or more destinations. In the case where
the application does not have control over all calls routed to the
destination, the routine continues at step 46 by estimating the number of
so-called "invisible" calls routed to each destination since the last call
queue length update from that destination. This number is equal to [(total
number of calls routed to all destinations since the last update) divided
by (fraction of total calls the application has control of)] multiplied by
(expected total call routing percentage for the destination).
The routine continues at step 48 to estimate the number of calls finished
and the number of calls abandoned since the last status update, using
statistics on average call handle times and average call abandon times
obtained from status data or from network configuration information. At
step 50, the routine calculates the expected current call queue length as
[(queue length at last status update) plus (calls routed to destination
since last status update) plus (estimated invisible calls routed to
destination) minus (estimated calls finished or abandoned since last
status update)]. As step 52, the routine then calculates the expected
answer delay as (expected current queue length) times (average call handle
time) divided by (number of agents currently busy). If planning data
indicates that the number of agents logged in will rise or diminish during
the next (expected delay) seconds, the routine continues at step 54 and
re-calculates the expected delay using a blended value for the number of
agents handling calls. The routine then terminates.
The decision procedure according to the invention thus uses status data and
planning data in novel ways, resulting in call routing that, compared to
prior art, is more robust in case of data outages (such as missing status
data from one or more destinations), is able to function more effectively
when only part of a total call stream is available for control by the
procedure, is better able to anticipate changes in staffing and to
distribute load in anticipation of those changes, and is better able to
function in situations where some destinations do not have systems capable
of providing all of the status data usually needed.
According to another feature of the invention, rules allow data from
"cooperating" applications to be used in evaluating conditions. Users can
pre-define what the cooperating applications are, and what data items
those applications can supply. To ensure acceptable real-time performance,
a cooperating application is queried at most once per call being routed. A
query is dispatched to the application the first time it is references in
a rule condition; the application's response is saved in case subsequent
rules need the data.
As noted above, rules are executed until all candidate destinations except
one have been eliminated or until all rules have been processed. The
specification of complex routing procedures using rules having the effect
of eliminating one or more destinations from those eligible to handle the
call or adding/subtracting timing or target percentage "bias" values is
quite powerful and offers significant advantages over the prior art.
Although each rule can access complex condition information, it has
heretofore not been known to express complex routing algorithms by such
rules. As will be seen below, the expression of complex routing algorithms
by rules having these effects allows a simple, linear flow of control that
avoids most kinds of programming errors in establishing call plans.
By way of example, the following description compares prior art routing
techniques with those of the present invention. In this example it is
assumed that real-time feedback from call destinations is not available.
Thus routing decisions are based on predetermined routing percentage
targets rather than on estimated call answer delay times.
Consider a company having a sales and service group that customers reach by
calling an 800 number. The call centers and incoming call traffic have the
following characteristics:
The company has call centers in Seattle, Denver, Chicago, and Boston. The
agents working at any given time are evenly divided among the call centers
open at that time.
Chicago is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The other centers are
open from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (local time) Monday through Friday, and
from 10:00 to 3:00 Saturday.
Total call traffic from the Eastern and Pacific time zones is twice that in
the Central and Mountain time zones.
From any given time zone, peak traffic comes between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m.
(local time), and between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m.
Minimum traffic comes from 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., and is 10% of the peak
traffic value. Traffic builds steadily from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and
drops off steadily from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
From 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., traffic is a steady 80% of peak value.
Sunday traffic is at the 10% level all day.
Saturday traffic is at 50% of peak levels from 10:00 to 3:00, and 10% at
other times.
As can be seen, for purposes of this example the call traffic and staffing
patterns are unrealistically well-behaved; more realistic assumptions
would make the advantages of the present invention even greater.
Assume further that the call routing has the following objectives:
1. Achieve an approximate balance in the call volume being offered to each
open call center in any given time period.
2. To the extent possible after load balancing considerations, it is
preferred to serve calls from a given time zone at the call center in that
time zone. If that call center is not available, it is preferred to use
the closest time zone available.
Such load balancing and geographic routing goals are typical of real-world
considerations, although the example has been simplified as much as
possible. The load balancing goal provides more consistent service to
callers and more efficient use of staff; the geographic routing goal
reduces call transport costs. Prior art systems for routing 800-type calls
make use of decision trees, routing tables, or equivalent methods to
encode decision procedures based on characteristics of the incoming call.
Because these methods do not have a built-in load balancing mechanism or a
built-in notion of destination capacity, the user must explicitly take
load balancing into account in creating a routing plan. If it is desired
to adjust call distribution every hour, the decision procedure using prior
art techniques requires approximately 200 decision tree nodes or route
table entries. An example of a such a prior art routing plan that would
best meet the example call routing requirements is set forth below in
pseudocode. The code could be converted to a decision tree or routing
table form in a straightforward way. In the example plan it is assumed
that the call routing processor is located in the Central time zone so all
time references are Central time:
If today is Sunday
Send 100% of calls to Chicago
If today is Saturday
If time is between 00:00 and 09:00
Send 100% of calls to Chicago
If time is between 09:00 and 10:00
For calls from Eastern time zone
Send 30% to Chicago
Send 70% to Boston
For calls from Central, Mountain or Pacific
Send 100% to Chicago
If time is between 10:00 and 11:00
For calls from Eastern time zone
Send 10% to Chicago
Send 90% to Boston
For calls from Central, Mountain or Pacific
Send 100% to Chicago
If time is between 11:00 and 12:00
For calls from Eastern
Send 74% to Boston
Send 23% to Chicago
Send 3% to Denver
For calls from Central
Send 100% to Chicago
For calls from Mountain or Pacific
Send 100% to Denver
If time is between 12:00 and 14:00
For calls from Eastern
Send 25% to Chicago
Send 75% to Boston
For calls from Central
Send 100% to Chicago
For calls from Mountain
Send 100% to Denver
For calls from Pacific
Send 25% to Denver
Send 75% to Seattle
If time is between 14:00 and 15:00
For calls from Pacific
Send 74% to Seattle
Send 23% to Denver
Send 3% to Chicago
For calls from Mountain
Send 100% to Denver
For calls from Central or Eastern
Send 100% to Chicago
If time is between 15:00 and 16:00
For calls from Eastern or Central
Send 100% to Chicago
For calls from Mountain
Send 100% to Denver
For calls from Pacific
Send 60% to Seattle
Send 30% to Chicago
Send 10% to Denver
If time is between 16:00 and 17:00
For calls from Eastern, Central or Mountain
Send 100% to Chicago
For calls from Pacific
Send 30% to Chicago
Send 70% to Seattle
If time is between 17:00 and 24:00
Send 100% to Chicago
If today is Monday through Friday
If time is between 00:00 and 05:00
Send 100% to Chicago
If time is between 05:00 and 06:00
For calls from Eastern
Send 19% to Chicago
Send 81% to Boston
For calls from Central, Mountain or Pacific
Send 100% to Chicago
If time is between 06:00 and 07:00
For calls from Eastern
Send 22% to Chicago
Send 78% to Boston
For calls from Central, Mountain or Pacific
Send 100% to Chicago
If time is between 07:00 and 08:00
For calls from Eastern
Send 44% to Boston
Send 21% to Chicago
Send 35% to Denver
For calls from Central
Send 100% to Chicago
For calls from Mountain or Pacific
Send 100% to Denver
If time is between 08:00 and 09:00
For calls from Eastern
Send 50% to Boston
Send 11% to Chicago
Send 22% to Denver
Send 17% to Seattle
For calls from Central
Send 100% to Chicago
For calls from Mountain
Send 100% to Denver
For calls from Pacific
Send 100% to Seattle
If time is between 09:00 and 10:00
For calls from Eastern
Send 70% to Boston
Send 7% to Chicago
Send 22% to Denver
Send 1% to Seattle
For calls from Central
Send 100% to Chicago
For calls from Mountain
Send 100% to Denver
For calls from Pacific
Send 100% to Seattle
If time is between 10:00 and 11:00
For calls from Eastern
Send 78% to Boston
Send 22% to Chicago
For calls from Central
Send 100% to Chicago
For calls from Mountain
Send 100% to Denver
For calls from Pacific
Send 80% to Seattle
Send 15% to Denver
Send 5% to Chicago
If time is between 11:00 and 12:00
For calls from Eastern
Send 81% to Boston
Send 19% to Chicago
For calls from Central
Send 100% to Chicago
For calls from Mountain
Send 100% to Denver
For calls from Pacific
Send 65% to Seattle
Send 25% to Denver
Send 10% to Chicago
If time is between 12:00 and 15:00
For calls from Eastern
Send 75% to Boston
Send 25% to Chicago
For calls from Central
Send 100% to Chicago
For calls from Mountain
Send 100% to Denver
For calls from Pacific
Send 75% to Seattle
Send 22% to Denver
If time is between 15:00 and 16:00
For calls from Pacific
Send 81% to Seattle
send 19% to Denver
For calls from Central
Send 100% to Chicago
For calls from Mountain
Send 100% to Denver
For calls from Eastern
Send 65% to Boston
Send 25% to Chicago | | |
