NICE CXone Mpower

My main use case for NICE CXone is digital transformation, bringing in multiple channels for our clients to serve digital interactions, automations, agent handling, and a customer experience.

NICE CXone acts as an orchestrator layer, with multiple channels being the way people reach out or the channel which they utilize coming back to NICE CXone. Being an orchestrator, it knows exactly where interactions need to be sent, whether to a prescribed path, an agent, or a different product altogether for self-servicing. I primarily focus on handling digital interaction intents, utterances, outcomes, and escalation to agents.

I have multiple use cases, but on a high level, NICE CXone comes with multiple product integrations. It is not just about routing, but also offers components like feedback management, QM, and WFM. This integrated suite supports the overall contact center operations and experience.

The best feature that NICE CXone offers, which is very recent, is the Copilot. This Copilot works in conjunction with the agent workspace and serves as a helper product for an agent while engaging in a conversation. It helps bring in articles from a KM repository if available and integrates with multiple resources, both internal and external to NICE. It also provides hints of sentiments and the luxury of performing specific tasks, making that specific item or product look very promising.

NICE CXone has impacted my organization positively through deployment. I am not utilizing NICE CXone as an end client, but what we are working for and what has been achieved so far is the automation, which is something any platform would do. We are trying to automate many things, avoiding intense things that escalate to agents and striving to self-service a lot of information. It gives us the luxury that the end customer can reach out from any specific channel, with just one orchestrator to manage that.

I think NICE CXone can be improved as it is currently an evolving product. It evolves rapidly, with many products or integrations coming in. For example, they are offering new integrations with a specific product called Amelia and a new feature called Cognigy, which promise a lot for the future. However, being a NICE consumer or developer for these instances and products currently, it becomes challenging due to documentation issues and the instability of some products. NICE has potential for improvement, but I also see much ongoing work, with documentation not fully supporting it and the system possibly lacking some key features or configurations, leading to problems.

Other improvements needed for NICE CXone include reviewing and enhancing the support they provide.

I have been using NICE CXone for the last five to six years.

NICE CXone does not seem stable at this point, but based on my experience of six to seven years, it generally is a stable product.

When discussing NICE CXone's scalability, I would say it is fair. It provides most of the essential features, protocols, and integrations available in the market. However, it does not allow for much customization according to specific requirements. Therefore, I would rate its scalability as fair—not very good, but not bad either, and good enough.

I believe customer support at NICE CXone can be greatly improved. There is a lot of feedback regarding the experience with NICE CXone, and they need to review their supporting structures. There have been consistent improvements since I started using NICE CXone, but there is still room for betterment. I would rate customer support a seven on a scale of one to ten.

I have previously used Avaya as a unified UCN contact center, unified communications, and contact center system. I have utilized it extensively, having performed many transformations myself. The shift was due to legacies, migrating to the cloud, and the benefits of switching services between providers quickly, primarily driven by the rapid advancements in AI capabilities. This transition helps in cutting down on license costs, data center expenses, and minimizing the number of calls reaching agents. This is why I am transitioning from existing Avaya, Verint, or Genesys on-premise systems to NICE CXone.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing suggests they are neither very simple nor overly complicated, but rather complicated due to a lack of accessible information. NICE has its own terminology that relates back to various suites and products. NICE encompasses a bundle of many products, bringing in numerous SKUs and different terminologies that can overwhelm someone unfamiliar with NICE. For those of us in the industry for a while, it makes sense, but overall, one must consult NICE for SKU sets, licenses, and everything. Better documentation or references could simplify this process, and I believe NICE is working on it, but it is not available at this point.

I cannot share specific return on investment metrics at this moment, but we have seen an impact on customer satisfaction, especially among tech-savvy individuals who enjoy exploring the system. Overall, these systems depend on how they are curated for end users, affecting various metrics. I have observed positive trends regarding CSAT scores, with fewer call transfers back to agents, and users actively engaging in self-service. While I do not have clear numbers on hand right now, the feedback has been positive.

I evaluated other options before choosing NICE CXone, specifically exploring Amazon Connect and Genesys Cloud.

My advice to others looking into using NICE CXone is to look closely at the product capabilities and how integrated the setups are, especially for key personas like customers and agents. The major impacts will be on these two groups. The customer experience significantly depends on how you curate it, and the product functionality and features also matter. Evaluating your system should include how well it integrates with CRMs. If you are thinking about transformation, assess all angles, particularly your CRM and CCaaS system. If your service runs on AWS, NICE being part of it would be a better fit, making many processes more feasible. If your cloud provider offers services in multiple platforms, I recommend considering those alternatives carefully.

Copilot seems to impact my day-to-day work and agent efficiency positively as it helps agents during conversations by providing a lot of key information. It renders down articles according to the live conversation, which is quite nice to have. It assists with sentiments, specific answers, tips, and tricks. When considering that we are handling a multiple omnichannel setup, keeping that context and information related to that specific channel or conversation becomes very critical where Copilot helps out.

I have seen specific outcomes or metrics from these automations or orchestrations as we are progressing on that front. I have implemented multiple products, which have impacted both parties, the end customer and the agent. For the end customer, things become easier because they can navigate and self-service a lot of information by themselves, which is a great feature for end users who know what they want to get done and are familiar with the system. It becomes so easy to accomplish tasks. NICE provides this information, and on the agent side, many new products like Copilot make the agent's life easier, allowing integrations with different platforms like MSD and Salesforce. This prevents agents from needing to shuffle between their omnichannel setup, as they can work through it all in one workspace. A combination of these two elements yields positive impact, and we see metrics indicating self-servicing where calls are not getting escalated to agents. Feedback has improved significantly.

Regarding NICE CXone's AI capabilities, it is native to AWS, relying heavily on AWS's policies. As an end customer, you may not have to worry much because of the cloud setup, but we do conduct our own reviews on how our data is stored, as multiple products come into the picture, adding some complexity. Overall, since it is hosted on Amazon, many policies from Amazon apply to NICE CXone as well.

When considering NICE CXone's AI capabilities, I think the accuracy and reliability of output are improving. NICE recently acquired Cognigy as an AI platform, which is relatively new to the market. They provide many integrations, and Cognigy certainly stands out. In contrast, NICE also has some in-house products, like Copilot, which I find to be key, with Copilot being particularly useful at this point. Cognigy seems promising on paper, although I have not fully experienced its capabilities yet. I would rate this review a six out of ten overall.

My use cases for NICE CXone involve migrating from a Cisco CUCM and CCX to NICE CXone, primarily for cost reasons, as Cisco had so many knobs and buttons that we really were not utilizing. NICE CXone was the solution that the business decided on, aiming for one pane of glass to reduce the various plugins and technologies used to monitor and operate the contact center. While it was missing a few things out of the box that we needed to customize with the implementation team and NICE support, the main goal was to achieve everything in one pane of glass, reduce cost, and provide ease of use for the contact center.

The valuable features of NICE CXone include the unified pane of glass that consolidates multiple plugins and technologies used to monitor and operate the contact center. The solution also provides ease of use and cost reduction compared to our previous Cisco deployment.

One of the things I dislike about NICE CXone is that during the evaluation process, it was promised that true omnichannel routing would be part of the product, but it turns out that was not necessarily the case. We ended up having to spend months working with support and implemented a few internal homebrew API and code to get it to function the way we wanted, which felt like a bit of false advertising. Although it worked out in the end, it still was not what was promised during the initial talks with the sales team.

I have been using NICE CXone for approximately two years.

I have seen minimal lagging, crashing, or downtime with NICE CXone, though there have been a few issues not specific to our environment, such as instances where recording has not worked for the entire platform. We communicated with our TAM, who kept us updated on broader issues affecting multiple users, so while it has happened, it has not been frequent.

In terms of scalability, NICE CXone is quite scalable, depending on your contract. For us, it was an issue when we signed up with around 300 seats, and a year later, we needed to downsize, which was somewhat challenging to adjust in the contract. While it is scalable, I cannot say it is user-friendly or easy, as there is often a price tag associated with those changes, which is to be expected, making it scalable but not preferable.

I have contacted NICE CXone's support, and the experience varies. The expert-level support was very good in resolving issues, typically within a 24-hour timeframe, while the basic support where we open tickets and follow up on their web GUI was decent, although there were times we needed to escalate through our TAM to speed things along. Overall, I would rate the support experience a seven out of ten.

I have used the Cisco suite prior to NICE CXone and considered quite a few alternatives, including all the competitors in the contact center space such as AWS Connect. Cost was a significant factor, along with features, and NICE CXone checked more boxes than the rest, making it the best choice for us at the time, even though it is hard to find a technology that perfectly meets every specific use case.

The initial setup of NICE CXone was straightforward and easy for our team, as the implementation team we worked with was very good at what they did. They provided us with a giant workbook to fill out, and they created the environment we needed in a timely manner, leading to a quick move with only a couple of months to get everything done. The cutover went well, making it a good experience, despite a few expected bumps along the way.

Overall, approximately six people were involved from our end in the implementation of NICE CXone. It took approximately six or seven months to fully set up NICE CXone from start to finish, especially with the extra features we had to implement.

I am not the correct person to comment in detail on the pricing of NICE CXone, but I know that we did end up saving quite a bit of money going from Cisco to NICE CXone, even though I am not sure of the exact amounts or percentages.

As far as maintenance for NICE CXone goes, not much is required from our end. I had a couple of times where I needed to adjust an IVR and tweak some of the routing that was not working correctly, along with fixing SIP trunking issues at one of our locations. However, we would receive notifications from the NICE team if patches were happening, and being a SaaS solution, there really is nothing we could do even if we wanted to, so there is no real maintenance on my team's end. I would rate this solution an eight overall.

I primarily use SMS, email, and calls for routing contacts via SMS, email, and phone to agents.

The new desktop scripting tool is better than the web-based one.

NICE CXone allows agents to request time off and trade schedules with other people. They can access training and coaching, and they can play games to help improve their performance. It functions as a good one-stop shop where they can input their preferred hours and manage their schedules, rather than having to go to multiple places for professional development.

A better approach would be to have built-in routing capabilities for scenarios such as routing by area code to different agents, rather than having to build this functionality with snippets. When working within the scripting environment, you need to add information to narrow down what a certain function does. Having a built-in system for routing by area code, or perhaps a database that you can simply access, would be more efficient than building it out yourself.

I started using this solution before 2000, but my usage has been sporadic. I use it for a couple of years and then move on to something else for a while before returning to it.

I have experienced very little in the way of stability issues.

The solution is very scalable. Once you get the licenses, you can do whatever you want.

The quality and speed of customer service were both good when I needed to use it. They assisted me in reviewing and rewriting some scripts and provided helpful support in a timely manner.

I base my comparison off of RingCentral. RingEX is a basic model phone system with poor analytics and reporting. Ring CX has more and better capability for reporting and analytics, but it still falls short. NICE CXone, on the other hand, has great analytics and reporting. It includes many templates that you can modify, and it has a lot of out-of-the-box, pre-built functionality.

The initial setup is easy because professional services assists with the process. You gather the information and provide it to professional services, and they help you build out the initial scripts and everything else.

You need a team to implement NICE CXone. Depending on the size of the organization, a single person could gather all the information, but one person would never be able to compile it all and put it together by themselves. It takes a team. You have to have networking involved, and you have to work with different stakeholders and collaborators to figure out what needs to be done and by whom. You may need to export data from your old system. Overall, it involves a lot of work that one person typically cannot do alone.

Five9 has too many panels. You have to go through all these different panels to find what you are trying to do and then navigate from one panel to another. It is harder to navigate overall.

I would rate this solution a 9 out of 10.

I am currently not using NICE CXone, but in previous projects, I implemented NICE CXone into one of my projects.

I implemented NICE CXone with our Service Cloud within Salesforce where sales agents and service agents could get calls directly from the softphone inside Salesforce and could see all related contact, case information, and account information while providing answers to their respective customers over the call.

I integrated NICE CXone with our Service Cloud Omni-Channel. The use case was that whenever users were facing problems while ordering into the Experience Cloud, they had the ability to call the call center. Automatically when they were calling, using the connector and the softphone inside Omni, agents could take their calls and on behalf of those customers, after call validation and speech validation, they could place orders on behalf of the customers, saving a lot of time and helping them in real time without worry about security constraints.

NICE CXone is very useful for our company because it provided us with live dashboards on all incoming calls and cases coming through NICE CXone, and the configuration, blending rules, and call waiting process setup are much easier.

NICE CXone has evolved considerably, and there are many cool features implemented in recent times. One of the key features is identifying and voice verification, which I really appreciated. Agents did not have to manually ask for first name, last name, and spend many minutes just to verify customers. This feature is definitely going to help because agents can now focus on direct troubleshooting rather than focusing on who is making the call without any worry.

After introducing NICE CXone to our workflows, we are seeing faster resolution of all open cases and shorter resolution time and shorter waiting time, which we had problems with previously.

Based on my last conversation with our customer, we were able to save approximately 23% of resolution time. Service agents were optimized to get those calls without worrying. It was a huge improvement for us.

I did not use its AI capability as much because at that time NICE CXone did not have AI capabilities. It was back in 2021 when I implemented NICE CXone.

As I mentioned, at that time we did not have this AI capability, so I cannot comment on this question.

I have been working with the Salesforce ecosystem for the past 13 years, so I have quite a bit of experience now.

It performed well with our volume, and I did not find any issues at that time.

It was a great conversation with customer support. Whenever we had any issue, they were proactive, prompt, and provided us with timely resolution.

We were using Avaya, and since we had a lot of challenges with utilizing Avaya, we went with NICE CXone.

To be honest, it was a leadership decision and I was not the decision maker at that time.

There was nothing major.

It was smooth. We had a dedicated product team who was very efficient and helpful.

We saw improvement in all these metrics. In terms of money, we were down by 12%. For employees, we were able to utilize more of their time, which was being wasted. Time was a huge improvement of around 23% resolution, as I mentioned.

I do not have any specific feedback to share because I am no longer implementing it. We have a rival product for our current company, but NICE CXone has some cool implementation and features which I would like to adopt and hope we can use this product for our current company as well.

My current company does not use NICE CXone. We are using a rival company product. In our previous company, we were also a customer.

I would strongly recommend NICE CXone to any future company looking for contact center related applications.

I really appreciate the product capabilities and it was well aligned with our use case. I provided this review with a rating of 9 out of 10.