Example 2: Dynamic Candidate Assignment Using Skills and Scoring

The following table provides sample data for another example. The numbers at the start of the table correspond to the numbered list 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 Asset Team Member	Type	2 Account Team Member	Type	3 Service Region	4 Skills
Employee 1	Primary	Employee 3	Primary	Employee 1	ENU
Employee 2	Secondary	Employee 6	Secondary	Employee 2	FRA
Employee 3	Tertiary	Employee 2	Tertiary	Employee 3	Not applicable
Employee 4	Tech Support	Employee 4	Tech Support	Employee 7	Not applicable
Employee 5	Never Send	Employee 7	Never Send	Employee 8	Not applicable

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, then the primary score = 100.

   • If Organization = Europe, then the primary score = 50.

   Based on the rules and their type, assume that 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

   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

3. 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, then 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.