Nem.con Grandeur Pvt Ltd. Communication solution – CASE STUDY 1

nem.con Grandeur Pvt Ltd.

Communication solution – CASE STUDY 1

INDEX

Existing Communication Architecture

Challenges in Existing Architecture NEW Architecture New Call Flow and Features – Internal communication

Key Highlights

CASE STUDY 1

Office by Office Description

New Call Flow and Features – Inbound – External Communication

New Call Flow and Features – Outbound – External Communication

CASE STUDY 1EXISTING COMMUNICATION ARCHITECTURE

NEVADA – LARGEST WAREHOUSE

1 PRI LINEMICROSOFT COMMUNICATION SERVER

VoIPDID

CALIFORNIA - HEADQUARTERS

EPABX1 PRI LINE

DID

ATLANTA – WAREHOUSE

EPABX1 PRI LINE

DID

NEW YORK – WAREHOUSE

EPABX1 PRI LINE

DID

CHICAGO –WAREHOUSE


DID

IBW


IBW



VoIPDID

• Client had installed Microsoft communication exchange server.• local calling was done through pri line while calling outside of the

state was done through VoIP• Intra office calling using VoIP.

• Inbound traffic through DID which served as helpline for sales / CS


IBW


EPABX1 PRI LINE

DID

• Client had an EPABX here• All calling through PRI

• Intra office calling using PRI• Inbound traffic through DID serving as helpline for Sales / CS


IBW


EPABX1 PRI LINE

DID


• Intra office calling using PRI• Inbound traffic through DID serving as helpline for Sales / CS


IBW


EPABX1 PRI LINE

DID


• Intra office calling using PRI• Inbound traffic through DID which served as helpline for sales / CS


IBW


EPABX1 PRI LINE

DID


• Intra office calling using PRI• Inbound traffic through DID serving as helpline for sales / CS

CASE STUDY 1CHALLENGES IN EXISTING ARCHITECTURE

COST

• Inter offi ce communication happened through PRI or VoIP and hence was chargeable.• Microsoft Communication Server – expensive technology. • Didn’t want any spends on hardware• Communication platforms used were not prioritised in terms of cost.

USER FRIENDLINESS

• No Live monitoring across offi ces.• No recording of conversations.• IT admin has no collated view of the entire telecom spends.• No single client for voice / chat / video except for the Nevada Offi ce.• Inbound caller had to rely on the operator for reaching the correct extension.

TECHNICAL

• Integration of Microsoft communication server with Asterisk server and SIP client without an API and yet within legal purview.• IT admin will set all rules dynamically in Microsoft communication server but should be applicable to the asterisk server as well.

ARCHITECTURE

• Different communication hardware in each of the offi ces making it diffi cult to unify them.• No organized call flow despite inbound calls for various departments.

CASE STUDY 1NEW ARCHITECTURE



ASTERISK SERVER ON VMWAREVoIP

DID – all Geographies


REMOTE CONNECTIVITY TO ASTERISK SERVER

VoIP



LOCAL ASTERISK SERVER on PCPRI



VoIP



VoIP

IBW

CASE STUDY 1NEW CALL FLOW - INTERNAL

IBWHUB ASTERISK

SERVER

MS COMM. SERVER

LYNC CLIENT

SIP CLIENT – I BEAM SIP CLIENT –

I BEAM

LOCAL ASTERISK SERVER

SIP CLIENT – I BEAM






VoIP PRI

VoIPPRI

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

CHICAGO

ATLANTA

NEW YORK

CASE STUDY 1INTERNAL CALLING DESCRIPTION

NEVADA

• Within Nevada office, employees can chat, video call, call each other through LYNC client on dialling desired extension. CALL FLOW: LYNC – MS Comm Server – HUB Asterisk Server – MS COMM Server - LYNC• Within the organization out side of Nevada office employees can call other employees on desired extensions.CALL FLOW: LYNC – MS Comm Server – HUB Asterisk Server – SIP CLIENT

ATLANTA

• In the Atlanta office, there was a connectivity issue with bandwidth at times, hence a local Asterisk Server was installed there. Internal calling of employees within office happened on dialling desired extension numer.CALL FLOW: SIP CLIENT – LOCAL Asterisk Server – SIP CLIENT• Internal calling to Nevada office employees on dialling desired extension CALL FLOW: SIP CLIENT – LOCAL Asterisk server – HUB Asterisk Server – MS Comm. Server – LYNC. In case the bandwidth is down then dial the desired number through VoIP.CALL FLOW: SIP CLIENT – LOCAL Asterisk Server – PRI – END USER

• Internal calling within same location or other locations except Nevada office.CALL FLOW: SIP CLIENT – HUB Asterisk server – SIP CLIENT• Internal Calling to Nevada office.CALL FLOW: SIP CLIENT – HUB Asterisk server – MS Comm. Server - LYNC

OTHER OFFICES

CASE STUDY 1NEW CALL FLOW – OUTBOUND – NON OFFICE

IBWHUB ASTERISK

SERVER

MS COMM. SERVER

LYNC CLIENT


I BEAM




VoIP PRI

VoIPPRI

NEVADA

CALIFORNIAATLANTA

CASE STUDY 1OUTBOUND DESCRIPTION

• Nevada office employees can out call any number.CALL FLOW: LYNC – MS Comm Server – HUB Asterisk Server – VoIP/PRI – DESTINATION• Other than Atlanta / Nevada office calling outside of office network happens as underCALL FLOW: LYNC – SIP CLIENT – HUB Asterisk Server – VoIP/PRI – DESTINATION• Atlanta office calling outside of the organization network CALL FLOW: SIP CLIENT – LOCAL Asterisk Server – HUB Asterisk Server – VoIP/PRI – DESTINATION• Atlanta office calling outside of organization when connectivity is downCALL FLOW: SIP CLIENT – LOCAL Asterisk Server – PRI - DESTINATION

CALL FLOW

FEATURES

• Outcalling will happen as per the dynamic low cost routing logic set by the admin in Microsoft Comm. Server – Asterisk server will understand the rules set in MS Comm. Server and set the routing accordingly.• Call recording – chronicling with proper nomenclature from the recording library. • Call Retrieval – Through an advanced search box • Automatic switchover from VoIP to PRI in case VPN over IBW is down.

CASE STUDY 1NEW CALL FLOW – INBOUND - NON OFFICE

IBWHUB ASTERISK

SERVER

MS COMM. SERVER

LYNC CLIENT


I BEAM




DID

PRI

NEVADA

CALIFORNIAATLANTA

CASE STUDY 1INBOUND DESCRIPTION

• All incoming calls land on DIDs that the organization had taken, which were different for different regions.•For nevada office, inbound calls landed as per this logicCALL FLOW: ORIGIN – HUB Asterisk Server – MS Comm. Server - LYNC• For Atlanta Office the incoming calls were routed as under:CALL FLOW: ORIGIN – HUB Asterisk Server – LOCAL Asterisk Server – SIP CLIENT• For other offices the incoming calls were routed as under:CALL FLOW: ORIGIN – HUB Asterisk Server – SIP CLIENT

CALL FLOW

FEATURES

• Inbound calls from various destinations would land up on the HUB Asterisk server where an IVR Was configured giving 3 options to the callers:• If for Sales press 1 and the call would land up at sales workstations of the respective offices.• If for service press 2 and the call would land up at service work stations of the respective offices.• If they knew the desired extension number, they can straightaway dial that too.

• In case the call doesn’t get picked up then it gets routed to a mobile number which was manned 24/7. In case the mobile number is busy then the caller leaves a voice mail which gets emailed to the extension number the caller was trying to reach. • In case of a caller calling to Sales or service set up, and not able to get through, voice mail was emailed to the supervisor who can further take care of it.• Call recording and chronicling them.

CASE STUDY 1KEY HIGHLIGHTS

Negotiation with the MC Comm Server Protocol without an API and without any illegal access of the DB.

Setting up a multi office communication architecture with minimal expense.

Creating a low cost routing logic for outbound calls, basis the cheapest VoIP rates for the destination location – which was dynamic and can be altered by the Admin.

Ensuring that inbound calls get routed to the sales / service of the respective office basis the location of the originator

CASE STUDY 1

Documents

Nem.con Grandeur Pvt Ltd. Communication solution – CASE STUDY 1