>
Every there are different groups of agents which have different access to queues. Isn't it mentioned that in order to achieve this, each queue must belong to its own group?
I don't know, that's why I asked the question. What are you trying to accomplish?
Why have 100 queues? That's a mess to manage.
Queues are for [groups of] agent[s] that are able to handle a category of tasks. If you have legitimately 100 [groups of] agents, 100 queues might make sense. Why make a customer choose from 100 queues to submit a ticket?
Good names for Queues: Plumbing, Electrical, Software, Hardware, Support
Services are specific things customers have purchased or have been allocated that need fixing.
Good names for Services: Toilet, Lights, Windows, HotSpot, Email
Don't forget that multiple queues can be members of the same group. If there's no reason permission-wise to segregate Queue54 from Queue55, then Queue54 and Queue55 can be both members of the same group. Especially, if all the customers have access to all the queues, then all the queues that the customers have access to should be a member of the same single queue of which all the customers are a member.
all customers are member of "100queuesormore" group.
all 100 queues are a member of "100queuesormore" group.
Again, the *only* (as far as I've been able to tell) reason to make individual queues with individual per-queue groups is single agent-based-queues. And the only (in my opinion) good reason to even do that is because you have customers assigned to specific agents, but not all of them at once.