In a UC environment, particularly when mobile, customers may dynamically switch communication modalities for faster interactions or to exchange data. This will make "agent" UC performance metrics complex to compare. For "experts," who have other business priorities and more complex response options, how should such performance metrics be used in the first place?
Although quite a number of people are interested in the posted topic, I notice that no one has yet commented on how to go about defining the metrics for "experts" vs. all the old metrics we have accumulated for "agents." This, of course, is a management rather than a technology issue and probably has not (yet) been tested in the real world of contact center "experts."
From a "customer experience" perspective, management does have to track the effectiveness (not just the performance efficiency) of "experts," directly or indirectly through "agents." However, mobility and UC will be key to involving "experts" no matter how the contact is initiated, person-to-person, person-to-process-to person, or directly by process-to-person CEBP) notifications.
In the latter instance, non-voice customer contacts can be based on any available experts choosing to respond when they can and, when there are several such "experts," work flow actions can be based on whoever gets there first. (Just like "dispatch!")
From the "customer experience" perspective, what is key is that the request is acknowledged immediately in a "personalized" way and followed up as soon as possible. With the increased use of mobile devices, the game is changing from "real-time" First Call Resolution to First Contact resolution and "As Soon As Possible" (ASAP) response, especially when information (not just voice conversation) needs to be exchanged.
Obviously, the choices can be affected by the contextual nature of the customer's request, but not every phone call is really "urgent" and with UC and presence, tradtional voice calls can now be effectively responded to in other practical ways.