Performance report shows 100% of port utilization, while the time line graph (summary graph button) shows differents values for resource usage and peak call volume. How should I understand those values (in performance time line graph)?

Could it be a mismatch between values showed in resource utilization table and performance time line graph?

Image attached.

Regrads,

The performance report table and timeline graph should be understood as providing slightly differently focused views on the performance of your Avaya Experience Portal (EP). In this case, you appear to only be using EP as the host platform for a Proactive Outreach Manager (POM) dialer, but the report is intrinsic to EP and covers all inbound and outbound port activity on the EP. You don’t provide any information about your platform (total number of EP ports, POM licenses & license types, types of campaigns – automated voice, agent-based preview, agent-based progressive/predictive, etc.) Without some of that information, interpretation of this PNG is a bit like reading tea leaves, but I’ll give it a try. ==
Looking at the right & left Timeline Graph axis’ labels, 100% Resource Usage for ports appears to align with a Peak Call Volume of about 45-46 ports. The Timeline peak Outbound Calls (line with inverted triangle markers) only appears to hit about 42-44 calls and reach about 96%-98% port Resource Usage. Notice that there are only 9 marked points on the line graph between 11:00 AM and 11:00 PM. That means that each point represents an average value for about one and a quarter hours. There is one period corresponding to about 2 PM – 4 PM where the system appears to “fully” use all of its ports outdialing. It isn’t 100% for all of that time, but I would estimate that it is as busy as your campaign(s) strategies allow. ==
The table portion of the Performance Report has a bit different interpretation. The Port Utilization % columns are data for the entire 24 hr period that you specified in the report selection criteria. The Peak column indicates that at some (at least one) point during that 24 hr period, your POM campaign(s) did simultaneously use 100% of the EP ports. That would probably occur during an interval whose average was in the high 90’s but not 100%. The Average column indicates that during that 24 hr period, you used 23% of the ports on MPP pom31mpp1py and 22% of the ports on MPP pom31mpp2py. From the Timeline Graph, it is clear that you had no campaign(s) running for several hours prior to 11 AM. When you “include” a large number of zeros in an “average,” you must expect the % to be much lower that if you had selected only a time range when POM campaigns were in full swing. ==
I’m not sure what you were trying to see in this report data, but I hope my “explanation” of how these data should be interpreted will be helpful. If you want to examine actual port usage when your campaign(s) are running, restrict the Performance Report time selection to just those hours. You can drill down quite granularly and get more focused views on what your POM is doing at various times. ==
One final observation on these two forms of the Performance Report. You appear to have no inbound traffic suggestive of an EP/POM only being used as a dialer. There is nothing to prevent you from theoretically also running inbound IVR application(s) on the same platform provided the EP is resourced correctly. Any EP platform running exclusively inbound applications with this type of port usage data would be a system in serious need of additional ports. When utilization is this high, basic traffic theory would predict that the “turn away” probability (IVR calls receiving busy signals) would be quite high! Should you choose to add inbound, you will need to examine this report and a few others quite carefully to ensure that outbound port occupancy by POM is not conflicting with or “starving” inbound port requirements.