Sunk Cost Fallacy?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
-
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
How does that related to the extension question, though?
-
The inherent problem with a parking lot is remember what slot the call is in. Equally so is someone else picking up the wrong call, then parking them in a different slot, so the original party can never find them.
With the Mitel system, this is a complete non issue. You place the call on hold on your own phone, from any other phone in the system you dial 4 + the extension the call is holding on. Additionally, I can send a call to your phone and instantly put it on hold on your phone by hitting - transfer + ext + hold button.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
How does that related to the extension question, though?
My guess is that to "steal" a call you call the extension that has the call on hold and push a button. That brings that on hold call to your handset.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
How does that related to the extension question, though?
It relates because if I have a parking lot button that puts the current caller on parking lot my extension, then I always know where it is 'on hold' at.
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
The inherent problem with a parking lot is remember what slot the call is in. Equally so is someone else picking up the wrong call, then parking them in a different slot, so the original party can never find them.
With the Mitel system, this is a complete non issue. You place the call on hold on your own phone, from any other phone in the system you dial 4 + the extension the call is holding on. Additionally, I can send a call to your phone and instantly put it on hold on your phone by hitting - transfer + ext + hold button.
You, of course, could do the same thing with parked calls. You can program the "hold" button to always park the call at 4+extension number. This will involve a lot of parking lots but would work.
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
How does that related to the extension question, though?
It relates because if I have a parking lot button that puts the current caller on parking lot my extension, then I always know where it is 'on hold' at.
How does this work with the Mitel if you have lots of calls to a single extension?
-
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
The inherent problem with a parking lot is remember what slot the call is in. Equally so is someone else picking up the wrong call, then parking them in a different slot, so the original party can never find them.
With the Mitel system, this is a complete non issue. You place the call on hold on your own phone, from any other phone in the system you dial 4 + the extension the call is holding on. Additionally, I can send a call to your phone and instantly put it on hold on your phone by hitting - transfer + ext + hold button.
You, of course, could do the same thing with parked calls. You can program the "hold" button to always park the call at 4+extension number. This will involve a lot of parking lots but would work.
Yeah that's sounding familiar.. basically there would have to be a single slot parking lot for every extension in the place.
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
The inherent problem with a parking lot is remember what slot the call is in. Equally so is someone else picking up the wrong call, then parking them in a different slot, so the original party can never find them.
With the Mitel system, this is a complete non issue. You place the call on hold on your own phone, from any other phone in the system you dial 4 + the extension the call is holding on. Additionally, I can send a call to your phone and instantly put it on hold on your phone by hitting - transfer + ext + hold button.
You, of course, could do the same thing with parked calls. You can program the "hold" button to always park the call at 4+extension number. This will involve a lot of parking lots but would work.
Yeah that's sounding familiar.. basically there would have to be a single slot parking lot for every extension in the place.
Yep, IIRC it goes against FreePBX best practices but it is available.
-
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
The inherent problem with a parking lot is remember what slot the call is in. Equally so is someone else picking up the wrong call, then parking them in a different slot, so the original party can never find them.
With the Mitel system, this is a complete non issue. You place the call on hold on your own phone, from any other phone in the system you dial 4 + the extension the call is holding on. Additionally, I can send a call to your phone and instantly put it on hold on your phone by hitting - transfer + ext + hold button.
You, of course, could do the same thing with parked calls. You can program the "hold" button to always park the call at 4+extension number. This will involve a lot of parking lots but would work.
Yeah that's sounding familiar.. basically there would have to be a single slot parking lot for every extension in the place.
Yep, IIRC it goes against FreePBX best practices
There is no such thing.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
How does that related to the extension question, though?
It relates because if I have a parking lot button that puts the current caller on parking lot my extension, then I always know where it is 'on hold' at.
How does this work with the Mitel if you have lots of calls to a single extension?
Our workflow doesn't do much if any blind transfers, and absolutely does not do any blind transfers to on hold. Blind transfers would always be to a typical ringing state, and if not answered transferred to VM or back to the transferer.
-
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
The inherent problem with a parking lot is remember what slot the call is in. Equally so is someone else picking up the wrong call, then parking them in a different slot, so the original party can never find them.
With the Mitel system, this is a complete non issue. You place the call on hold on your own phone, from any other phone in the system you dial 4 + the extension the call is holding on. Additionally, I can send a call to your phone and instantly put it on hold on your phone by hitting - transfer + ext + hold button.
You, of course, could do the same thing with parked calls. You can program the "hold" button to always park the call at 4+extension number. This will involve a lot of parking lots but would work.
Yeah that's sounding familiar.. basically there would have to be a single slot parking lot for every extension in the place.
Yep, IIRC it goes against FreePBX best practices
There is no such thing.
Best practices? I could have sworn they recommend in the interface that you shouldn't have more then 15 parking lots. It was a warning on that configuration page. I could easily be recalling incorrectly and this was related to something else.
-
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
The inherent problem with a parking lot is remember what slot the call is in. Equally so is someone else picking up the wrong call, then parking them in a different slot, so the original party can never find them.
With the Mitel system, this is a complete non issue. You place the call on hold on your own phone, from any other phone in the system you dial 4 + the extension the call is holding on. Additionally, I can send a call to your phone and instantly put it on hold on your phone by hitting - transfer + ext + hold button.
You, of course, could do the same thing with parked calls. You can program the "hold" button to always park the call at 4+extension number. This will involve a lot of parking lots but would work.
Yeah that's sounding familiar.. basically there would have to be a single slot parking lot for every extension in the place.
Yep, IIRC it goes against FreePBX best practices
There is no such thing.
As a best practice? yeah this would seem like a weird best practice. perhaps a better way to phrase it would be typical practice.
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
How does that related to the extension question, though?
It relates because if I have a parking lot button that puts the current caller on parking lot my extension, then I always know where it is 'on hold' at.
How does this work with the Mitel if you have lots of calls to a single extension?
Our workflow doesn't do much if any blind transfers, and absolutely does not do any blind transfers to on hold. Blind transfers would always be to a typical ringing state, and if not answered transferred to VM or back to the transferer.
Where the fuck did blind transfers come from?
It was specifically asked how you handle lots of calls to a single extension.
More specifically, I would ask how do you handle the second call after a call is already parked to an extension.
-
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
How does that related to the extension question, though?
It relates because if I have a parking lot button that puts the current caller on parking lot my extension, then I always know where it is 'on hold' at.
How does this work with the Mitel if you have lots of calls to a single extension?
Our workflow doesn't do much if any blind transfers, and absolutely does not do any blind transfers to on hold. Blind transfers would always be to a typical ringing state, and if not answered transferred to VM or back to the transferer.
Where the fuck did blind transfers come from?
It was specifically asked how you handle lots of calls to a single extension.
More specifically, I would ask how do you handle the second call after a call is already parked to an extension.
Yeah, that's what I was wondering. Just one more call and how can you tell from another room what you are grabbing.
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
How does that related to the extension question, though?
It relates because if I have a parking lot button that puts the current caller on parking lot my extension, then I always know where it is 'on hold' at.
How does this work with the Mitel if you have lots of calls to a single extension?
Our workflow doesn't do much if any blind transfers, and absolutely does not do any blind transfers to on hold. Blind transfers would always be to a typical ringing state, and if not answered transferred to VM or back to the transferer.
You mention that you don't do this here. But in a previous comment you said.
Additionally, I can send a call to your phone and instantly put it on hold on your phone by hitting - transfer + ext + hold button.
So you want a feature that you don't use? Or did I misread this?
-
Remember that he has a digital key system. So he uses really bad terms, due to that.
-
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
Remember that he has a digital key system. So he uses really bad terms, due to that.
That must be it, I started with SIP and haven't touched many legacy systems.
-
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
How does that related to the extension question, though?
It relates because if I have a parking lot button that puts the current caller on parking lot my extension, then I always know where it is 'on hold' at.
How does this work with the Mitel if you have lots of calls to a single extension?
Our workflow doesn't do much if any blind transfers, and absolutely does not do any blind transfers to on hold. Blind transfers would always be to a typical ringing state, and if not answered transferred to VM or back to the transferer.
Where the fuck did blind transfers come from?
It was specifically asked how you handle lots of calls to a single extension.
More specifically, I would ask how do you handle the second call after a call is already parked to an extension.
I'm trying to envision this workflow - I guess I'll use the car salesman example to explain what I think you want.
Sales, you have a call on line 1, line 2 line 3, etc these would all be parking lot slots... OK Fine.
We don't work flow like that.
Calls flow into an operator, that operator then finds live unbusy (not currently on a call) people then transfers the call to them. Sometimes the person getting the call is in the middle of something they want to finish first, so they tell the operator - park the call here (i.e. on my extension) I'll take it in a min.
So the operator puts the call on their extension on hold. The hold light lights up for the phone, and when the person is done with whatever, they grab the call from hold. -
@Dashrender you need to map out your call flow process, in detail, on a whiteboard or something because you do not understand everything involved.
Once it is all wrote down, you can then begin to translate processes.
Just like our conversation yesterday on your current costs. The number you immediately gave me was completely wrong, because of a lack of detailed knowledge. These are things I do constantly and is why I stated immediately and with confidence that the number you gave me was wrong.
So take that same level of detail that I illustrated with your bill and take it to your call flow process. Make a tree.
