Most contact center transformation decisions are made before anyone has seen what is actually running. Platform evaluations, vendor comparisons, board briefs — all built on assumptions about a system nobody has fully read. ACT Blueprint gives you the complete picture of your current estate in 24 hours, so every decision that follows is grounded in fact.
of organizations cite integration challenges as the primary barrier to contact center migration. The technology is rarely the blocker. It's the undocumented dependencies hiding behind it.
Average time overrun on CCaaS projects, with a 30% budget overrun on top, all driven by complexity nobody knew existed until they were already mid-migration.
Decision-makers report being completely satisfied with their CCaaS migration outcome, according to Forrester. The rest discovered too late what they were actually dealing with.
It waits. And it surfaces mid-project, at the most expensive point to find it.
Your contact center has been modified, patched, and extended for years. Flows added for seasonal campaigns. Routing rules adjusted for workforce changes. Integrations built by people who have since moved on. Every one of those changes is running in production, and most of it lives nowhere else but the system itself.
The executives who avoid costly migration surprises are not luckier. They had a complete, objective picture of what they were actually running before they committed to a direction.
The gaps are almost never in the main menu. They're in after-hours logic, workforce management, cross-department transfer rules, and integrations only one person understands. When that person moves on, the organization is left with systems that work but that nobody can fully explain. What depends on them. What would break.
This is the problem ACT Blueprint exists to solve. Before a migration, a modernization initiative, or the first line of an RFP, we give you a complete, automated view of what is actually running across the contact center estate.
Voicebots and conversational AI will be live in 78% of contact centers by 2030. Today the figure is 32%. That is a lot of legacy IVR about to be replaced — and most of it has never been fully read.
42% of callers still start by phoning a live person, and only 3% start with keypad menus (CCW Digital, 2026). The IVR sits between people and their answer. Before you upgrade it, you need to know what it is.
One automated run produces four structured outputs. Everything you need to evaluate your options, choose a platform, and brief a migration team — before you commit to any direction.
Every IVR flow, routing rule, queue configuration, and integration endpoint mapped as typed nodes and relationships. The complete wiring diagram of your contact center estate — queryable, exportable, and ready to hand to a migration team.
All flows organized into named business journeys — Billing, Claims, FNOL, Transfers. Each journey shows the caller path, the intent it handles, and where it succeeds or fails to contain the call. The estate in the language of your business.
A complete map of every backend system your contact center touches — databases, APIs, CRM integrations, payment handlers. What depends on what, what would break if you moved it, and what can be safely cut.
Where callers are reaching the right outcome, where they are failing to self-serve, and where they are escalating unnecessarily. The performance picture of your current estate — from the caller's side, not the engineer's.
No manual documentation. No workshops to reconstruct tribal knowledge. ACT Blueprint reads your contact center estate directly, starting with the IVR layer where most of the complexity lives and working outward through routing, queue, and integration surfaces.
We connect to your platform — Avaya, Cisco CVP, or Genesys — and read the live configuration directly from source. No dependency on documentation. No interviews. What is actually running today.
Every flow, routing path, queue rule, and integration endpoint is assembled into a structured knowledge graph. A complete, queryable map of your contact center estate — not a summary, not a sample.
Each flow is given a business-language label: what it is trying to do, where it succeeds, and where it creates friction. Findings land in a format your team can read without engineering translation.
Flows are organized into named business journeys — Billing, Claims, FNOL, Transfers — the way your team thinks about the estate, not the way source files are structured. Ready to evaluate, ready to hand to a migration team.
ACT Blueprint is designed for the beginning of any significant contact center initiative. If you are in any of these situations, this is where it fits.
Platform comparisons, vendor scorecards, and cost models are all built on assumptions about your current estate. ACT Blueprint replaces those assumptions with facts — before the first vendor conversation, before the first line of an RFP.
Before deciding whether to transform, upgrade, or hold — you need a clear view of what your contact center is actually doing for callers. ACT Blueprint surfaces containment failures, broken paths, and integration gaps automatically.
An RFP built on incomplete discovery produces inaccurate bids and scope gaps that surface after contract signature. ACT Blueprint gives you the estate map you need to write a brief that reflects your actual complexity.
ACT Blueprint removes the most time-consuming, people-intensive phase of any transformation engagement — for both sides. Your partner gets a verified estate map from day one. You skip the workshop phase and reach the transformation plan faster.
One of the largest property and casualty insurers in the United States had been running their IVR on Cisco Unified CVP for over ten years. The system handled millions of calls annually, modified for seasonal campaigns, adjusted for workforce changes, extended by teams that had since moved on. No one had a complete, current view of what was actually in it.
ACT Blueprint ran a single automated pass across the full Call Studio application. In one session it reconstructed 186 dialog nodes, 319 relationships, and 11 distinct caller journeys into a Neo4j knowledge graph, and surfaced findings that had been invisible in production for years. The graph showed how the system was built. The call records showed what callers actually experienced.
Below is what the two data sources showed when crossed against each other.
| Lever | Basis in the artifacts | Annual impact | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contacts deflected | Containment 41% → 68% across waves 1–4; 651k contacts at $4.85 fully loaded | $3.16M | R2, R3 |
| Repeat contacts avoided | 7-day repeat rate 23% → 15%; 193k fewer repeat contacts | $0.94M | R3, T2 |
| Avaya platform retired | 15 duplicate flows consolidated; licence and support released | $0.41M | C3, F1, F4 |
| Change velocity | Prompt change lead time 14 days → 2 days; ticket data not provided | not costed | F1 |
| Agent attrition | No workforce management extract provided | not costed | — |
| Quantified total | $4.51M | ||
Only levers supported by provided artifacts are monetised. Change velocity and agent attrition are named but not costed — underlying data was not shared.
The operational metrics below explain where that number comes from.
All figures computed from the 10,000-conversation sample (195,174 turns, 5,957 callers) over a 90-day window. Design baselines derived from the reconstructed graph.
The line works — but it works for the system, not the caller.
This IVR is complete and well built — every path resolves, nothing is orphaned. But it authenticates hard and early, makes callers re-key data it had already found, routes through a confirmation menu whose answer is ignored, and sends every stumble to an agent. Most calls still end with a person, and the reasons people call most are the ones the line was never built to finish.
Resolution is a coverage problem, not a tuning problem. Decide which journeys should finish without a human, add the billing journey that has no path at all, and stop making callers prove who they are after you have already recognised them.
| Journey | Call | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Claim status inquiry | Modernize | 14 turns behind two menus to hear one fact; highest-volume reason to call. |
| Report a new accident (FNOL) | Modernize | 20+ turns; ten questions in series; location captured twice. |
| Main-menu navigation | Modernize | A numbered menu tree with no way to just say what you want. |
| Identification & verification | Rationalize | Dead confirmation menu, unused lookup, a simulated check. |
| Greeting & language | Rationalize | Language forced as a menu choice on every single call. |
| Roadside assistance | Investigate | Looks like self-service but always transfers; no dispatch integration exists. |
| FNOL submission & fraud routing | Retain | Backend evaluation and fraud routing are sound. |
| Coverage validation | Retain | Clean gate before a claim is opened. |
Retain 4 · Rationalize 3 · Modernize 3 · Investigate 1 — across 11 journeys, 186 nodes, 319 relationships
The sample report from the Cisco CVP run includes six analyses, eleven caller journeys mapped from source code, and a prioritised redesign brief. Every figure is derived from real call records and real source code — no estimates, no synthetic data.
Enter your name and business email and we will send the full sample report within one business day.
Your report is downloading.
Check your downloads folder for the ACT Blueprint sample report. Our team will follow up shortly.
ACT Blueprint produces the complete picture of what you're working with. Aumne ACT uses that picture to migrate it — automatically, in 45 days.
Share your source project and we run ACT Blueprint. You receive the full knowledge graph, the business journey map, the integration surface, and the caller experience analysis — before you commit to any migration approach.