Mailing List Archive

Agreed with TIm, it's just simpler to involve less systems if you can.
With 12.0 UCCX and higher, the calendar function is a nice addition, no
more XML files for schedules.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 AM Johnson, Tim <johns10t@cmich.edu> wrote:

> It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most
> scenarios. When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to
> provide us with an easy way to provide a schedule, and a familiar way for
> the customer to record a greeting. Later, we ended up building the schedule
> into our script and directing calls to the trigger. That's my preference,
> just to involve less systems.
>
> Tim Johnson
> Voice & Video Engineer
> Central Michigan University
> Call me: +19897744406
> Video Call me: johns10t@cmich.edu
> Fax me: +19897795900
> Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of
> fred@browardcommunications.com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM
> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice
>
>
> Hello, I just have a quick question.
> When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the
> main number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx
> triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go
> right to CCX? I have seen both ways.
>
> Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>

We still use Call Handlers. We have fewer resources who can handle script editing and somewhat frequent requests to change hours and such that we need the regular techs to be able to handle.

Definitely a preference thing.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of Charles Goldsmith
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:39 AM
To: Johnson, Tim <johns10t@cmich.edu>
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

[EXTERNAL]

Agreed with TIm, it's just simpler to involve less systems if you can. With 12.0 UCCX and higher, the calendar function is a nice addition, no more XML files for schedules.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 AM Johnson, Tim <johns10t@cmich.edu<mailto:johns10t@cmich.edu>> wrote:
It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most scenarios. When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to provide us with an easy way to provide a schedule, and a familiar way for the customer to record a greeting. Later, we ended up building the schedule into our script and directing calls to the trigger. That's my preference, just to involve less systems.

Tim Johnson
Voice & Video Engineer
Central Michigan University
Call me: +19897744406
Video Call me: johns10t@cmich.edu<mailto:johns10t@cmich.edu>
Fax me: +19897795900
Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t


-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net>> On Behalf Of fred@browardcommunications.com<mailto:fred@browardcommunications.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice


Hello, I just have a quick question.
When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the main number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go right to CCX? I have seen both ways.

Thank you.
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Not much more to add here, except +1 for calling in IPCC. :) you’d have gotten +2 if you called it CRA. ;)

But, seriously, you have to weigh the pros and cons of injecting a point of failure vs ease of administration.

My thought process is, can you build automatic recovery? Or easily understood manual backup.

And is the design something you can easily hand off to someone?

Lots of things to consider.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Matthew Loraditch <MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:

?

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to IThelp@uoguelph.ca

We still use Call Handlers. We have fewer resources who can handle script editing and somewhat frequent requests to change hours and such that we need the regular techs to be able to handle.

Definitely a preference thing.


Matthew Loraditch?
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518<tel:443.541.1518>
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/> | e: MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com>
<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
<image137282.png>
<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
<image428710.png>
<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
<image540273.png>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
<image899251.png>
From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of Charles Goldsmith
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:39 AM
To: Johnson, Tim <johns10t@cmich.edu>
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

[EXTERNAL]

Agreed with TIm, it's just simpler to involve less systems if you can. With 12.0 UCCX and higher, the calendar function is a nice addition, no more XML files for schedules.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 AM Johnson, Tim <johns10t@cmich.edu<mailto:johns10t@cmich.edu>> wrote:
It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most scenarios. When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to provide us with an easy way to provide a schedule, and a familiar way for the customer to record a greeting. Later, we ended up building the schedule into our script and directing calls to the trigger. That's my preference, just to involve less systems.

Tim Johnson
Voice & Video Engineer
Central Michigan University
Call me: +19897744406
Video Call me: johns10t@cmich.edu<mailto:johns10t@cmich.edu>
Fax me: +19897795900
Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t


-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net>> On Behalf Of fred@browardcommunications.com<mailto:fred@browardcommunications.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice


Hello, I just have a quick question.
When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the main number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go right to CCX? I have seen both ways.

Thank you.
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Fred,

There's no best practice for this question/scenario. You have to do what
is best for the given set of parameters the business gives you to design a
solution.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:53 AM Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:

>
> Not much more to add here, except +1 for calling in IPCC. :) you’d have
> gotten +2 if you called it CRA. ;)
>
> But, seriously, you have to weigh the pros and cons of injecting a point
> of failure vs ease of administration.
>
> My thought process is, can you build automatic recovery? Or easily
> understood manual backup.
>
> And is the design something you can easily hand off to someone?
>
> Lots of things to consider.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Matthew Loraditch <
> MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>
> ?
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph.
> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
> know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to
> IThelp@uoguelph.ca
>
> We still use Call Handlers. We have fewer resources who can handle script
> editing and somewhat frequent requests to change hours and such that we
> need the regular techs to be able to handle.
>
>
>
> Definitely a preference thing.
>
>
>
> Matthew Loraditch?
> Sr. Network Engineer
> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/> |
> e: *MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com* <MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com>
>
> <image137282.png>
> <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>
> <image428710.png>
> <https://facebook.com/heliontech>
>
> <image540273.png>
> <https://twitter.com/heliontech>
>
> <image899251.png>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net> *On Behalf Of *Charles
> Goldsmith
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:39 AM
> *To:* Johnson, Tim <johns10t@cmich.edu>
> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>
>
>
> [EXTERNAL]
>
>
>
> Agreed with TIm, it's just simpler to involve less systems if you can.
> With 12.0 UCCX and higher, the calendar function is a nice addition, no
> more XML files for schedules.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 AM Johnson, Tim <johns10t@cmich.edu> wrote:
>
> It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most
> scenarios. When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to
> provide us with an easy way to provide a schedule, and a familiar way for
> the customer to record a greeting. Later, we ended up building the schedule
> into our script and directing calls to the trigger. That's my preference,
> just to involve less systems.
>
> Tim Johnson
> Voice & Video Engineer
> Central Michigan University
> Call me: +19897744406
> Video Call me: johns10t@cmich.edu
> Fax me: +19897795900
> Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of
> fred@browardcommunications.com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM
> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice
>
>
> Hello, I just have a quick question.
> When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the
> main number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx
> triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go
> right to CCX? I have seen both ways.
>
> Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>

Wait Lelio, CRA is older terminology than CRS, so it should go:

+1 IPCC
+2 CRS
+3 CRA

Right?

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:53 AM Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:

>
> Not much more to add here, except +1 for calling in IPCC. :) you’d have
> gotten +2 if you called it CRA. ;)
>
> But, seriously, you have to weigh the pros and cons of injecting a point
> of failure vs ease of administration.
>
> My thought process is, can you build automatic recovery? Or easily
> understood manual backup.
>
> And is the design something you can easily hand off to someone?
>
> Lots of things to consider.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Matthew Loraditch <
> MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>
> ?
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph.
> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
> know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to
> IThelp@uoguelph.ca
>
> We still use Call Handlers. We have fewer resources who can handle script
> editing and somewhat frequent requests to change hours and such that we
> need the regular techs to be able to handle.
>
>
>
> Definitely a preference thing.
>
>
>
> Matthew Loraditch?
> Sr. Network Engineer
> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/> |
> e: *MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com* <MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com>
>
> <image137282.png>
> <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>
> <image428710.png>
> <https://facebook.com/heliontech>
>
> <image540273.png>
> <https://twitter.com/heliontech>
>
> <image899251.png>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net> *On Behalf Of *Charles
> Goldsmith
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:39 AM
> *To:* Johnson, Tim <johns10t@cmich.edu>
> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>
>
>
> [EXTERNAL]
>
>
>
> Agreed with TIm, it's just simpler to involve less systems if you can.
> With 12.0 UCCX and higher, the calendar function is a nice addition, no
> more XML files for schedules.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 AM Johnson, Tim <johns10t@cmich.edu> wrote:
>
> It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most
> scenarios. When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to
> provide us with an easy way to provide a schedule, and a familiar way for
> the customer to record a greeting. Later, we ended up building the schedule
> into our script and directing calls to the trigger. That's my preference,
> just to involve less systems.
>
> Tim Johnson
> Voice & Video Engineer
> Central Michigan University
> Call me: +19897744406
> Video Call me: johns10t@cmich.edu
> Fax me: +19897795900
> Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of
> fred@browardcommunications.com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM
> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice
>
>
> Hello, I just have a quick question.
> When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the
> main number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx
> triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go
> right to CCX? I have seen both ways.
>
> Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>

+100 for Anthony! ????



From: Anthony Holloway <avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 10:48 AM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca>
Cc: Matthew Loraditch <MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com>; Charles Goldsmith <w@woka.us>; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to IThelp@uoguelph.ca<mailto:IThelp@uoguelph.ca>

Wait Lelio, CRA is older terminology than CRS, so it should go:

+1 IPCC
+2 CRS
+3 CRA

Right?

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:53 AM Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca<mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca>> wrote:

Not much more to add here, except +1 for calling in IPCC. :) you’d have gotten +2 if you called it CRA. ;)

But, seriously, you have to weigh the pros and cons of injecting a point of failure vs ease of administration.

My thought process is, can you build automatic recovery? Or easily understood manual backup.

And is the design something you can easily hand off to someone?

Lots of things to consider.

Sent from my iPhone


On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Matthew Loraditch <MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com>> wrote:
?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to IThelp@uoguelph.ca<mailto:IThelp@uoguelph.ca>

We still use Call Handlers. We have fewer resources who can handle script editing and somewhat frequent requests to change hours and such that we need the regular techs to be able to handle.

Definitely a preference thing.


Matthew Loraditch?
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518<tel:443.541.1518>
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
|
e: MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com>
<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
<image137282.png><http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>

<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
<image428710.png><https://facebook.com/heliontech>

<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
<image540273.png><https://twitter.com/heliontech>

<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
<image899251.png><https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>

From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net>> On Behalf Of Charles Goldsmith
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:39 AM
To: Johnson, Tim <johns10t@cmich.edu<mailto:johns10t@cmich.edu>>
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

[EXTERNAL]

Agreed with TIm, it's just simpler to involve less systems if you can. With 12.0 UCCX and higher, the calendar function is a nice addition, no more XML files for schedules.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 AM Johnson, Tim <johns10t@cmich.edu<mailto:johns10t@cmich.edu>> wrote:
It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most scenarios. When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to provide us with an easy way to provide a schedule, and a familiar way for the customer to record a greeting. Later, we ended up building the schedule into our script and directing calls to the trigger. That's my preference, just to involve less systems.

Tim Johnson
Voice & Video Engineer
Central Michigan University
Call me: +19897744406
Video Call me: johns10t@cmich.edu<mailto:johns10t@cmich.edu>
Fax me: +19897795900
Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t


-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net>> On Behalf Of fred@browardcommunications.com<mailto:fred@browardcommunications.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice


Hello, I just have a quick question.
When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the main number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go right to CCX? I have seen both ways.

Thank you.
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

What about IP IVR?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:16 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>
> ?
> +100 for Anthony! ????
>
>
>
> From: Anthony Holloway <avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 10:48 AM
> To: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca>
> Cc: Matthew Loraditch <MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com>; Charles Goldsmith <w@woka.us>; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to IThelp@uoguelph.ca
>
> Wait Lelio, CRA is older terminology than CRS, so it should go:
>
> +1 IPCC
> +2 CRS
> +3 CRA
>
> Right?
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:53 AM Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>
> Not much more to add here, except +1 for calling in IPCC. :) you’d have gotten +2 if you called it CRA. ;)
>
> But, seriously, you have to weigh the pros and cons of injecting a point of failure vs ease of administration.
>
> My thought process is, can you build automatic recovery? Or easily understood manual backup.
>
> And is the design something you can easily hand off to someone?
>
> Lots of things to consider.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Matthew Loraditch <MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>
> ?
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to IThelp@uoguelph.ca
>
> We still use Call Handlers. We have fewer resources who can handle script editing and somewhat frequent requests to change hours and such that we need the regular techs to be able to handle.
>
> Definitely a preference thing.
>
>
> Matthew Loraditch?
> Sr. Network Engineer
> p: 443.541.1518
> w: www.heliontechnologies.com
> |
> e: MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com
> <image137282.png>
>
> <image428710.png>
>
> <image540273.png>
>
> <image899251.png>
>
> From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of Charles Goldsmith
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:39 AM
> To: Johnson, Tim <johns10t@cmich.edu>
> Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>
> [EXTERNAL]
>
> Agreed with TIm, it's just simpler to involve less systems if you can. With 12.0 UCCX and higher, the calendar function is a nice addition, no more XML files for schedules.
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 AM Johnson, Tim <johns10t@cmich.edu> wrote:
> It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most scenarios. When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to provide us with an easy way to provide a schedule, and a familiar way for the customer to record a greeting. Later, we ended up building the schedule into our script and directing calls to the trigger. That's my preference, just to involve less systems.
>
> Tim Johnson
> Voice & Video Engineer
> Central Michigan University
> Call me: +19897744406
> Video Call me: johns10t@cmich.edu
> Fax me: +19897795900
> Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of fred@browardcommunications.com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM
> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice
>
>
> Hello, I just have a quick question.
> When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the main number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go right to CCX? I have seen both ways.
>
> Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

GTFO

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:25 AM NateCCIE <nateccie@gmail.com> wrote:

> What about IP IVR?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:16 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>
> ?
>
> +100 for Anthony! ????
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Anthony Holloway <avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2020 10:48 AM
> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca>
> *Cc:* Matthew Loraditch <MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com>; Charles
> Goldsmith <w@woka.us>; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>
>
>
> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of the University of
> Guelph. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
> sender and know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails
> to IThelp@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> Wait Lelio, CRA is older terminology than CRS, so it should go:
>
>
>
> +1 IPCC
>
> +2 CRS
>
> +3 CRA
>
>
>
> Right?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:53 AM Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> Not much more to add here, except +1 for calling in IPCC. :) you’d have
> gotten +2 if you called it CRA. ;)
>
>
>
> But, seriously, you have to weigh the pros and cons of injecting a point
> of failure vs ease of administration.
>
>
>
> My thought process is, can you build automatic recovery? Or easily
> understood manual backup.
>
>
>
> And is the design something you can easily hand off to someone?
>
>
>
> Lots of things to consider.
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Matthew Loraditch <
> MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>
> ?
>
> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of the University of
> Guelph. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
> sender and know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails
> to IThelp@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> We still use Call Handlers. We have fewer resources who can handle script
> editing and somewhat frequent requests to change hours and such that we
> need the regular techs to be able to handle.
>
>
>
> Definitely a preference thing.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Matthew Loraditch**?*
>
> *Sr. Network Engineer*
>
> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
>
> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>
> |
>
> e: *MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com* <MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com>
>
> <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>
> <image137282.png> <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>
>
>
> <https://facebook.com/heliontech>
>
> <image428710.png> <https://facebook.com/heliontech>
>
>
>
> <https://twitter.com/heliontech>
>
> <image540273.png> <https://twitter.com/heliontech>
>
>
>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
>
> <image899251.png> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net> *On Behalf Of *Charles
> Goldsmith
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:39 AM
> *To:* Johnson, Tim <johns10t@cmich.edu>
> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>
>
>
> [EXTERNAL]
>
>
>
> Agreed with TIm, it's just simpler to involve less systems if you can.
> With 12.0 UCCX and higher, the calendar function is a nice addition, no
> more XML files for schedules.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 AM Johnson, Tim <johns10t@cmich.edu> wrote:
>
> It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most
> scenarios. When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to
> provide us with an easy way to provide a schedule, and a familiar way for
> the customer to record a greeting. Later, we ended up building the schedule
> into our script and directing calls to the trigger. That's my preference,
> just to involve less systems.
>
> Tim Johnson
> Voice & Video Engineer
> Central Michigan University
> Call me: +19897744406
> Video Call me: johns10t@cmich.edu
> Fax me: +19897795900
> Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of
> fred@browardcommunications.com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM
> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice
>
>
> Hello, I just have a quick question.
> When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the
> main number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx
> triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go
> right to CCX? I have seen both ways.
>
> Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>

+1000

????????????????

Sent from an iPhone mobile device with very tiny touchscreen input keys. Please excude my typtos.

> On Aug 19, 2020, at 12:51 PM, Anthony Holloway <avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ?
> GTFO
>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:25 AM NateCCIE <nateccie@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What about IP IVR?
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:16 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>> ?
>>> +100 for Anthony! ????
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Anthony Holloway <avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 10:48 AM
>>> To: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca>
>>> Cc: Matthew Loraditch <MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com>; Charles Goldsmith <w@woka.us>; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to IThelp@uoguelph.ca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wait Lelio, CRA is older terminology than CRS, so it should go:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> +1 IPCC
>>>
>>> +2 CRS
>>>
>>> +3 CRA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Right?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:53 AM Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not much more to add here, except +1 for calling in IPCC. :) you’d have gotten +2 if you called it CRA. ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But, seriously, you have to weigh the pros and cons of injecting a point of failure vs ease of administration.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My thought process is, can you build automatic recovery? Or easily understood manual backup.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And is the design something you can easily hand off to someone?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lots of things to consider.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Matthew Loraditch <MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to IThelp@uoguelph.ca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We still use Call Handlers. We have fewer resources who can handle script editing and somewhat frequent requests to change hours and such that we need the regular techs to be able to handle.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Definitely a preference thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Matthew Loraditch?
>>>
>>> Sr. Network Engineer
>>>
>>> p: 443.541.1518
>>>
>>> w: www.heliontechnologies.com
>>>
>>> |
>>>
>>> e: MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com
>>>
>>> <image137282.png>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <image428710.png>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <image540273.png>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <image899251.png>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of Charles Goldsmith
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:39 AM
>>> To: Johnson, Tim <johns10t@cmich.edu>
>>> Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [EXTERNAL]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed with TIm, it's just simpler to involve less systems if you can. With 12.0 UCCX and higher, the calendar function is a nice addition, no more XML files for schedules.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 AM Johnson, Tim <johns10t@cmich.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most scenarios. When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to provide us with an easy way to provide a schedule, and a familiar way for the customer to record a greeting. Later, we ended up building the schedule into our script and directing calls to the trigger. That's my preference, just to involve less systems.
>>>
>>> Tim Johnson
>>> Voice & Video Engineer
>>> Central Michigan University
>>> Call me: +19897744406
>>> Video Call me: johns10t@cmich.edu
>>> Fax me: +19897795900
>>> Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of fred@browardcommunications.com
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM
>>> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>> Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello, I just have a quick question.
>>> When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the main number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go right to CCX? I have seen both ways.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

We might have to stop blowing up Fred's email with our inside jokes and
musing of technology past. Sorry Fred! I hope you got the
answers/feedback you were looking for.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:39 PM Bill Talley <btalley@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1000
>
> ????????????????
>
> Sent from an iPhone mobile device with very tiny touchscreen input keys.
> Please excude my typtos.
>
> On Aug 19, 2020, at 12:51 PM, Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ?
> GTFO
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:25 AM NateCCIE <nateccie@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What about IP IVR?
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:16 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>>
>> ?
>>
>> +100 for Anthony! ????
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Anthony Holloway <avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2020 10:48 AM
>> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca>
>> *Cc:* Matthew Loraditch <MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com>; Charles
>> Goldsmith <w@woka.us>; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>>
>>
>>
>> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of the University of
>> Guelph. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
>> sender and know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails
>> to IThelp@uoguelph.ca
>>
>>
>>
>> Wait Lelio, CRA is older terminology than CRS, so it should go:
>>
>>
>>
>> +1 IPCC
>>
>> +2 CRS
>>
>> +3 CRA
>>
>>
>>
>> Right?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:53 AM Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Not much more to add here, except +1 for calling in IPCC. :) you’d have
>> gotten +2 if you called it CRA. ;)
>>
>>
>>
>> But, seriously, you have to weigh the pros and cons of injecting a point
>> of failure vs ease of administration.
>>
>>
>>
>> My thought process is, can you build automatic recovery? Or easily
>> understood manual backup.
>>
>>
>>
>> And is the design something you can easily hand off to someone?
>>
>>
>>
>> Lots of things to consider.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Matthew Loraditch <
>> MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>>
>> ?
>>
>> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of the University of
>> Guelph. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
>> sender and know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails
>> to IThelp@uoguelph.ca
>>
>>
>>
>> We still use Call Handlers. We have fewer resources who can handle script
>> editing and somewhat frequent requests to change hours and such that we
>> need the regular techs to be able to handle.
>>
>>
>>
>> Definitely a preference thing.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Matthew Loraditch**?*
>>
>> *Sr. Network Engineer*
>>
>> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
>>
>> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>>
>> |
>>
>> e: *MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com*
>> <MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com>
>>
>> <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>>
>> <image137282.png> <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>> <https://facebook.com/heliontech>
>>
>> <image428710.png> <https://facebook.com/heliontech>
>>
>>
>>
>> <https://twitter.com/heliontech>
>>
>> <image540273.png> <https://twitter.com/heliontech>
>>
>>
>>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
>>
>> <image899251.png> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net> *On Behalf Of *Charles
>> Goldsmith
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:39 AM
>> *To:* Johnson, Tim <johns10t@cmich.edu>
>> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>>
>>
>>
>> [EXTERNAL]
>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed with TIm, it's just simpler to involve less systems if you can.
>> With 12.0 UCCX and higher, the calendar function is a nice addition, no
>> more XML files for schedules.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 AM Johnson, Tim <johns10t@cmich.edu> wrote:
>>
>> It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most
>> scenarios. When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to
>> provide us with an easy way to provide a schedule, and a familiar way for
>> the customer to record a greeting. Later, we ended up building the schedule
>> into our script and directing calls to the trigger. That's my preference,
>> just to involve less systems.
>>
>> Tim Johnson
>> Voice & Video Engineer
>> Central Michigan University
>> Call me: +19897744406
>> Video Call me: johns10t@cmich.edu
>> Fax me: +19897795900
>> Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of
>> fred@browardcommunications.com
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM
>> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice
>>
>>
>> Hello, I just have a quick question.
>> When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the
>> main number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx
>> triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go
>> right to CCX? I have seen both ways.
>>
>> Thank you.
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>

Not blowing it up at all, I’ve enjoyed the back n forth!!

I was going to try n be cool for a second and throw ICM out there.

/FW



Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 19, 2020, at 2:42 PM, Anthony Holloway <avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We might have to stop blowing up Fred's email with our inside jokes and musing of technology past. Sorry Fred! I hope you got the answers/feedback you were looking for.
>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:39 PM Bill Talley <btalley@gmail.com> wrote:
>> +1000
>>
>> ????????????????
>>
>> Sent from an iPhone mobile device with very tiny touchscreen input keys. Please excude my typtos.
>>
>>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 12:51 PM, Anthony Holloway <avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ?
>>> GTFO
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:25 AM NateCCIE <nateccie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> What about IP IVR?
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:16 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ?
>>>>> +100 for Anthony! ????
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Anthony Holloway <avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 10:48 AM
>>>>> To: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca>
>>>>> Cc: Matthew Loraditch <MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com>; Charles Goldsmith <w@woka.us>; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to IThelp@uoguelph.ca
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wait Lelio, CRA is older terminology than CRS, so it should go:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 IPCC
>>>>>
>>>>> +2 CRS
>>>>>
>>>>> +3 CRA
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:53 AM Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not much more to add here, except +1 for calling in IPCC. :) you’d have gotten +2 if you called it CRA. ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But, seriously, you have to weigh the pros and cons of injecting a point of failure vs ease of administration.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My thought process is, can you build automatic recovery? Or easily understood manual backup.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And is the design something you can easily hand off to someone?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lots of things to consider.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Matthew Loraditch <MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ?
>>>>>
>>>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to IThelp@uoguelph.ca
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We still use Call Handlers. We have fewer resources who can handle script editing and somewhat frequent requests to change hours and such that we need the regular techs to be able to handle.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Definitely a preference thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthew Loraditch?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sr. Network Engineer
>>>>>
>>>>> p: 443.541.1518
>>>>>
>>>>> w: www.heliontechnologies.com
>>>>>
>>>>> |
>>>>>
>>>>> e: MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <image137282.png>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <image428710.png>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <image540273.png>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <image899251.png>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of Charles Goldsmith
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:39 AM
>>>>> To: Johnson, Tim <johns10t@cmich.edu>
>>>>> Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [EXTERNAL]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed with TIm, it's just simpler to involve less systems if you can. With 12.0 UCCX and higher, the calendar function is a nice addition, no more XML files for schedules.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 AM Johnson, Tim <johns10t@cmich.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most scenarios. When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to provide us with an easy way to provide a schedule, and a familiar way for the customer to record a greeting. Later, we ended up building the schedule into our script and directing calls to the trigger. That's my preference, just to involve less systems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim Johnson
>>>>> Voice & Video Engineer
>>>>> Central Michigan University
>>>>> Call me: +19897744406
>>>>> Video Call me: johns10t@cmich.edu
>>>>> Fax me: +19897795900
>>>>> Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of fred@browardcommunications.com
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM
>>>>> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>>> Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello, I just have a quick question.
>>>>> When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the main number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go right to CCX? I have seen both ways.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Didn’t the original name have Platform at the end , making P last character
after CRA?


On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:10 PM fred@browardcommunications.com <
fred@browardcommunications.com> wrote:

> Not blowing it up at all, I’ve enjoyed the back n forth!!
>
> I was going to try n be cool for a second and throw ICM out there.
>
> /FW
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 19, 2020, at 2:42 PM, Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We might have to stop blowing up Fred's email with our inside jokes and
> musing of technology past. Sorry Fred! I hope you got the
> answers/feedback you were looking for.
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:39 PM Bill Talley <btalley@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1000
>>
>> ????????????????
>>
>> Sent from an iPhone mobile device with very tiny touchscreen input keys.
>> Please excude my typtos.
>>
>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 12:51 PM, Anthony Holloway <
>> avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ?
>> GTFO
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:25 AM NateCCIE <nateccie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What about IP IVR?
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:16 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> +100 for Anthony!
>>>
>>> ????
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Anthony Holloway <avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2020 10:48 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Cc:* Matthew Loraditch <MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com>; Charles
>>> Goldsmith <w@woka.us>; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of the University of
>>> Guelph. Do not click links
>>>
>>> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
>>> is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to
>>>
>>> IThelp@uoguelph.ca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wait Lelio, CRA is older terminology than CRS, so it should go:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> +1 IPCC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> +2 CRS
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> +3 CRA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Right?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:53 AM Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not much more to add here, except +1 for calling in IPCC. :) you’d have
>>> gotten +2 if you called it CRA. ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But, seriously, you have to weigh the pros and cons of injecting a point
>>> of failure vs ease of administration.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My thought process is, can you build automatic recovery? Or easily
>>> understood manual backup.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And is the design something you can easily hand off to someone?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lots of things to consider.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Matthew Loraditch <
>>> MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of the University of
>>> Guelph. Do not click links
>>>
>>> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
>>> is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to
>>>
>>> IThelp@uoguelph.ca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We still use Call Handlers. We have fewer resources who can handle
>>> script editing and somewhat frequent requests to change hours and such that
>>> we need the regular techs to be able
>>>
>>> to handle.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Definitely a preference thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Matthew Loraditch**?*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Sr. Network Engineer*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> |
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> e: *MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com*
>>> <MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <image137282.png> <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://facebook.com/heliontech>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <image428710.png> <https://facebook.com/heliontech>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://twitter.com/heliontech>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <image540273.png> <https://twitter.com/heliontech>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <image899251.png> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net>
>>>
>>> *On Behalf Of *Charles Goldsmith
>>>
>>>
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:39 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> *To:* Johnson, Tim <johns10t@cmich.edu>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [EXTERNAL]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed with TIm, it's just simpler to involve less systems if you can.
>>> With 12.0 UCCX and higher, the calendar function is a nice addition, no
>>> more XML files for schedules.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 AM Johnson, Tim <johns10t@cmich.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most
>>> scenarios. When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to
>>> provide us with an easy way to provide a
>>>
>>> schedule, and a familiar way for the customer to record a greeting.
>>> Later, we ended up building the schedule into our script and directing
>>> calls to the trigger. That's my preference, just to involve less systems.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim Johnson
>>>
>>>
>>> Voice & Video Engineer
>>>
>>>
>>> Central Michigan University
>>>
>>>
>>> Call me: +19897744406
>>>
>>>
>>> Video Call me: johns10t@cmich.edu
>>>
>>>
>>> Fax me: +19897795900
>>>
>>>
>>> Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>
>>>
>>> From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of
>>>
>>> fred@browardcommunications.com
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>
>>>
>>> Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello, I just have a quick question.
>>>
>>>
>>> When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the
>>> main number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx
>>> triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go
>>> right to CCX? I have seen both ways.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>>
>>>
>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>
>>>
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>>
>>>
>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>
>>>
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>>
>>>
>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>
>>>
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>>
>>>
>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>
>>>
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> cisco-voip mailing list
>
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>

Low blow Erick, low blow.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 PM Erick Bergquist <erickbee@gmail.com> wrote:

> Didn’t the original name have Platform at the end , making P last
> character after CRA?
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:10 PM fred@browardcommunications.com <
> fred@browardcommunications.com> wrote:
>
>> Not blowing it up at all, I’ve enjoyed the back n forth!!
>>
>> I was going to try n be cool for a second and throw ICM out there.
>>
>> /FW
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 2:42 PM, Anthony Holloway <
>> avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> We might have to stop blowing up Fred's email with our inside jokes and
>> musing of technology past. Sorry Fred! I hope you got the
>> answers/feedback you were looking for.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:39 PM Bill Talley <btalley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1000
>>>
>>> ????????????????
>>>
>>> Sent from an iPhone mobile device with very tiny touchscreen input
>>> keys. Please excude my typtos.
>>>
>>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 12:51 PM, Anthony Holloway <
>>> avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ?
>>> GTFO
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:25 AM NateCCIE <nateccie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What about IP IVR?
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:16 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +100 for Anthony!
>>>>
>>>> ????
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Anthony Holloway <avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2020 10:48 AM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Cc:* Matthew Loraditch <MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com>; Charles
>>>> Goldsmith <w@woka.us>; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of the University of
>>>> Guelph. Do not click links
>>>>
>>>> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
>>>> content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to
>>>>
>>>> IThelp@uoguelph.ca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wait Lelio, CRA is older terminology than CRS, so it should go:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1 IPCC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +2 CRS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +3 CRA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:53 AM Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not much more to add here, except +1 for calling in IPCC. :) you’d have
>>>> gotten +2 if you called it CRA. ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But, seriously, you have to weigh the pros and cons of injecting a
>>>> point of failure vs ease of administration.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My thought process is, can you build automatic recovery? Or easily
>>>> understood manual backup.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And is the design something you can easily hand off to someone?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lots of things to consider.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Matthew Loraditch <
>>>> MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of the University of
>>>> Guelph. Do not click links
>>>>
>>>> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
>>>> content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to
>>>>
>>>> IThelp@uoguelph.ca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We still use Call Handlers. We have fewer resources who can handle
>>>> script editing and somewhat frequent requests to change hours and such that
>>>> we need the regular techs to be able
>>>>
>>>> to handle.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Definitely a preference thing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Matthew Loraditch**?*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Sr. Network Engineer*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> |
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> e: *MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com*
>>>> <MLoraditch@heliontechnologies.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <image137282.png> <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://facebook.com/heliontech>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <image428710.png> <https://facebook.com/heliontech>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://twitter.com/heliontech>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <image540273.png> <https://twitter.com/heliontech>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <image899251.png>
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net>
>>>>
>>>> *On Behalf Of *Charles Goldsmith
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:39 AM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *To:* Johnson, Tim <johns10t@cmich.edu>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [EXTERNAL]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Agreed with TIm, it's just simpler to involve less systems if you can.
>>>> With 12.0 UCCX and higher, the calendar function is a nice addition, no
>>>> more XML files for schedules.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 AM Johnson, Tim <johns10t@cmich.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most
>>>> scenarios. When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to
>>>> provide us with an easy way to provide a
>>>>
>>>> schedule, and a familiar way for the customer to record a greeting.
>>>> Later, we ended up building the schedule into our script and directing
>>>> calls to the trigger. That's my preference, just to involve less systems.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tim Johnson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Voice & Video Engineer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Central Michigan University
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Call me: +19897744406
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Video Call me: johns10t@cmich.edu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fax me: +19897795900
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of
>>>>
>>>> fred@browardcommunications.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello, I just have a quick question.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have
>>>> the main number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to
>>>> uccx triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go
>>>> right to CCX? I have seen both ways.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>>