Siebel Assignment Manager Administration Guide > Working with Dynamic Candidates >

Examples of Dynamic Candidate Assignment

This topic gives two examples of how you might use dynamic candidate assignment. You may use this feature differently, depending on your business model.

Example 1: Dynamic Candidate Assignment for a Service Organization

Generally, in high-value machinery or asset-based service organizations, each asset is typically associated one or more field service engineers (FSE). These preassigned FSEs are often the customer's first contact for service requests, onsite visits for preventive maintenance, break-fix type of activities, and so on. In addition, these FSEs are usually ranked as Primary, Secondary, or Tertiary based on their seniority, skills, and so on.

This scenario provides an example of a process performed by field service engineers (FSEs) in an X-ray manufacturing company. Your company may follow a different process according to its business requirements.

During a typical day in a field service organization, a group of FSEs responds to customer phone calls and prepares for onsite visits for preventative maintenance and break-fix type of activities. In this scenario, a hospital calls for preventative maintenance for their X-ray machine as per warranty conditions.

To handle the incoming request, the service center agent creates a service request, and then creates a preventative maintenance activity for that service request. Next, the agent assigns that activity (by clicking the Assign button in one of the service request views), and the results window appears with the potential assignees for the asset team. The agent can then choose the appropriate candidate to complete the assignment process. Typically, FSEs are ranked as primary, secondary, or tertiary based on their seniority, skills, and so on, and the agent bases his decision on this ranking.

Example 2: Dynamic Candidate Assignment Using Skills and Scoring

Table 40 provides sample data for another example. The numbers at the top of the table correspond to the numbered text following the table. Because the resulting list of potential assignees is dependent on the assignee filter and other criteria stipulated in the assignment rule, a few resultant examples are provided, following the numbered text.

1. The asset has an asset team and each employee in that team has a type. All the employees in this team are eligible candidates for the activity. The employees are scored based on their type and the following assignment rules:
   • If Organization = Americas, primary score = 100.
   • If Organization = Europe, primary score = 50.

     Based on the rules and their type, assume the asset team scores are:

     Employee 1 = 100
     Employee 2 = 75
     Employee 3 = 50
     Employee 4 = 25
     Employee 5 = 0

2. The activity has an account team and each employee in that team has a type. All the employees in this team are eligible candidates for this activity. The employees are scored based on their type.

   The account team scores are:

   Employee 3 = 80
   Employee 6 = 60
   Employee 2 = 30
   Employee 4 = 10
   Employee 7 = 0

3. The activity has a service region, and the service region has employees. All employees are eligible candidates for skill matching. You match activity skills and employee skills, but you can specify other matching criteria as well.

   Employee 1 = 100
   Employee 2 = 150
   Employee 3 = 75
   Employee 7 = 200
   Employee 8 = 25

4. This step determines the final list of potential candidates for this activity. The following are two possible results:
   • Given the AddScores parameter is set to TRUE, the list is the union of the employees from all three previous lists, and employee scores are added if they exist in more than one list.

     The final list of candidates for this activity with their corresponding scores is:

     Employee 1 = 200 (100 + 100)
     Employee 2 = 255 (75 + 30 + 150)
     Employee 3 = 205 (50 + 80 + 75)
     Employee 4 = 35 (25 + 10)
     Employee 5 = 0
     Employee 6 = 60
     Employee 7 = 200 (0 + 200)
     Employee 8 = 25

   • Given the AddScores parameter is set to FALSE, the scores are not added, so the highest-scoring employee (Employee 7) is selected.

     The final list of candidates for this activity with their corresponding scores is:

     Employee 1 = 100
     Employee 2 = 150
     Employee 3 = 80
     Employee 3 = 75
     Employee 4 = 25
     Employee 5 = 0
     Employee 6 = 60
     Employee 7 = 200
     Employee 8 = 25

Additional possible final results for this example include:

• If the assignment rules uses a One, Best Fit assignee filter, only the highest scoring employee is assigned, so Employee 2 is the only eligible candidate for assignment.
• If the assignment rule uses an All Above Minimum assignee filter and the minimum score for the rule is 200, then Employee 1, 2, and 3 are potential candidates for the assignment.