6202
Avaya Aura Contact Center Implementation
Avaya Aura Contact Center Implementation Exam Guide
No allowed official source confirms a current Avaya exam blueprint, prerequisite, price, score, question count, duration, language, or delivery method for “Avaya Aura Contact Center Implementation.” The available evidence instead centers on Cisco Unified CCE interoperability with Avaya Aura Contact Center. This guide therefore helps implementation engineers, contact-center administrators, architects, and integration specialists decide what to study first, how to validate technical claims, and whether the exam can currently be scheduled through an authorized program. Treat the implementation topics below as evidence-led preparation targets, not as an official weighted syllabus.
What the available evidence actually confirms
The strongest permitted evidence is Cisco documentation, not an Avaya certification page. Cisco identifies an ACD Supplement for Avaya Aura Contact Center, describes Avaya Peripheral Gateway and ICM-to-ICM Gateway support in a Packaged CCE design, and records the supplement in its Unified Contact Center Enterprise technical-reference list.
Cisco published a document titled “Cisco Unified ICM ACD Supplement for Avaya Aura Contact Center” in July 2015, while Cisco’s technical-reference list catalogs the Avaya Aura Contact Center ACD Supplement with a date of August 12, 2015. Those facts establish a documented interoperability subject; they do not establish that a currently offered certification exam uses the same material.
Cisco’s compatibility documentation also notes that Nortel Contact Center Manager, previously called Symposium Contact Center Server, was renamed Avaya Aura Contact Center. That terminology matters when searching older manuals, diagrams, and configuration references. A candidate who searches only for the modern product name may miss relevant historical documentation.
What is not verified
No allowed-domain source located an official Avaya course, exam, price, scheduling page, prerequisite, blueprint, passing score, question count, duration, language list, or retirement notice titled “Avaya Avaya Aura Contact Center Implementation.” Do not treat catalogue wording, third-party listings, practice questions, or old product references as proof of current exam policy.
There are also no verified blueprint percentages. Consequently, this guide does not assign weights to call routing, Peripheral Gateway configuration, compatibility, troubleshooting, or any other domain. A percentage should be used only after an authorized exam owner publishes it.
Who should use this preparation plan
This study approach suits professionals who must reason about Avaya Aura Contact Center in an enterprise contact-center integration: implementation engineers, voice and routing specialists, system administrators, solution architects, and support staff moving into deployment work. It is less suitable for someone seeking only a product overview or a general introduction to customer-service software.
The evidence is particularly relevant to people working at the boundary between Avaya Aura Contact Center and Cisco Unified CCE. Cisco’s material discusses the Avaya PG, ICM-to-ICM Gateway, Network VRU, call-flow types, virtual-machine placement, compatibility, and redundancy. Those are concrete technical decisions that an implementer must be able to explain and verify.
A candidate whose job is limited to agent coaching, reporting, workforce management, or generic CRM configuration should first confirm that this exam title matches the intended role. The available sources do not establish a separate Avaya administrator or implementation curriculum, so preparation should begin by validating the exam identity with the sponsoring program.
The decision to make before studying
Before buying training or reserving a test appointment, confirm three items directly with the organization that owns the exam: whether the exam is currently active, which product release the title covers, and where authorized registration occurs. This is the highest-value next action because Pearson VUE states that it no longer delivers exams for the testing program reached through its Avaya page.
Do not infer that an exam is available merely because a title appears in a catalogue or because older Cisco documentation still exists. If the sponsor confirms a current exam, request its official objectives or candidate guide. Use this article as a technical study framework only when those official details are unavailable.
Which technical skills to build first
Study the implementation chain from architecture to verification: identify the contact-center components, map the Avaya-to-Cisco integration boundary, trace a call through routing and VRU services, check release compatibility, and validate resilience. This sequence is more useful than memorizing isolated product terms because each design choice affects the next diagnostic step.
The permitted Cisco evidence supports several study targets. You should be able to distinguish an Avaya PG from an ICM-to-ICM Gateway, describe the supported call-flow categories named in the Packaged CCE design, identify the documented Network VRU, and explain why deployment location and redundancy affect the design.
These are preparation targets inferred from the published interoperability material, not confirmed exam domains. If an official exam guide becomes available, reconcile its objectives against this list and remove any topic that falls outside the tested product release.
Architecture and integration boundaries
Start by drawing a component map rather than reading configuration screens in isolation. Label the Avaya Aura Contact Center side, the Avaya PG, Cisco Unified CCE components, the ICM-to-ICM Gateway where applicable, the Network VRU, and the communication paths between them. Then annotate which system owns each decision: call control, routing, agent or skill information, and reporting.
Cisco’s Packaged CCE design describes Avaya PG and ICM-to-ICM Gateway support as a non-reference design. That wording should change how you study. A non-reference design is not a safe basis for assuming that every familiar reference architecture, version combination, or deployment shortcut applies. Learn to locate the exact support statement before recommending a design.
A useful exercise is to explain the integration to another engineer without naming a screen or command. If your explanation cannot identify which component sends, receives, or translates a routing event, you have a conceptual gap to close before practicing detailed configuration.
Peripheral Gateway placement and resilience
Memorize the documented placement constraint as a design rule, then understand its operational consequence: for the Packaged CCE non-reference design, Cisco requires the Avaya PG to be deployed on a separate virtual machine. A diagram that places the PG casually with unrelated components should trigger a design-review question, not an assumption that co-location is acceptable.
Cisco’s Unified CCE 15.0(1) design documentation lists an “Avaya Aura PG without AAS option” and says that Peripheral Gateways are deployed in redundant pairs. Treat the release context carefully. The statement is useful for understanding the current Cisco design vocabulary in that document, but it does not prove that every Avaya release or exam version uses the same option.
Prepare by comparing failure scenarios: loss of one PG instance, loss of a virtual machine, loss of a communication path, and a version mismatch. For each scenario, identify what should remain available, what must be checked, and which official compatibility or design document governs the conclusion.
Call-flow reasoning
Cisco lists pre-route, translation-route, and post-route call flows as supported in the Packaged CCE non-reference design. Learn what question each flow answers: where routing occurs before delivery, how a route is translated or handed off, and what information is available after the initial routing decision. The goal is to trace events, not simply recite labels.
Create one neutral call trace for each named flow. Mark the point where the call enters the environment, the point at which routing information is requested or returned, the VRU interaction, and the final delivery toward an agent or destination. Do not invent platform-specific behavior where the source does not state it; leave an evidence note and verify it in the applicable product documentation.
A common mistake is to treat a successful call as proof that the intended flow was implemented. A test call can complete while a translation, post-route, reporting, or failover behavior is wrong. Your validation plan should test the route decision and the resulting state, not just whether someone answers.
Network VRU and service dependencies
The Packaged CCE design identifies Unified CVP Type 10 as the supported Network VRU for that non-reference design. Keep the subject attached to its exact context: this is a Cisco-stated support detail for the described Packaged CCE design, not a universal rule for every Avaya Aura Contact Center implementation.
Build a dependency table with four columns: component, responsibility, upstream dependency, and observable verification. For the Network VRU row, record the documented type and then identify the configuration or test evidence you would seek in the relevant release documentation. This prevents a frequent study error—remembering a component name while forgetting the design in which it is supported.
When a scenario mentions self-service or an IVR path, ask whether the problem is routing, VRU configuration, signaling, media, or compatibility. Similar symptoms can originate in different layers. A good implementer narrows the layer before changing settings.
Compatibility and supportability
Use the Compatibility Matrix as the authority for supported configurations and versions when the relevant release applies. Cisco states that the matrix specifies supported configurations and versions, including maintenance and ES releases, and that a configuration or version not stated in the matrix is unsupported.
Cisco also states that the Compatibility Matrix supersedes compatibility information in other Cisco CCE documentation. This creates a practical reading order: identify the CCE release, identify the Avaya release and integration component, consult the matrix, and only then use design guides or older supplements for implementation detail.
Do not resolve a version question by choosing the newest component or by combining individually supported products. Interoperability is a relationship between specific releases and options. Record the exact release names in your notes, and flag any combination that the matrix does not explicitly state rather than calling it supported.
Feature limits and legacy terminology
The matrix states that the Automated Administrator for Symposium feature is not supported with Avaya Aura Contact Center 6.4. This is a good example of the precision expected in implementation work: a product name, a feature, a release, and a support status must remain together.
Older documents may use Symposium or Nortel Contact Center Manager terminology. Cisco’s matrix explains the renaming relationship, so build a translation list in your notes. Include the old and current names, but do not assume that a renamed product has identical capabilities, interfaces, or support status across releases.
When you encounter a feature in a legacy supplement, mark it as “documented,” “supported for a stated release,” or “requires current verification.” This simple classification prevents old technical material from becoming an accidental promise about a current environment.
How to study without an official blueprint
Use an evidence-first method: establish the exam’s current status, collect the sponsor’s objectives if available, then study the documented integration decisions in dependency order. Without a verified blueprint, allocate time by risk and complexity rather than by invented percentages.
Your notes should separate three kinds of statements: official support facts, conclusions drawn from those facts, and hands-on recommendations. For example, “the PG must be on a separate virtual machine” is a published design requirement for the stated Packaged CCE design; “therefore document VM ownership in the deployment plan” is a practical recommendation.
Avoid practice material that presents unverified questions or claims that memorization guarantees a pass. The supplied evidence does not disclose live exam content, and leaked or copied questions are not a substitute for implementation competence.
A productive reading order
Read the compatibility material first so that later design statements are interpreted within a support boundary. Next read the Packaged CCE design section for the Avaya PG, gateway, call-flow, and Network VRU relationships. Then use the Avaya ACD Supplement to understand the integration vocabulary and historical context.
After each reading session, close the document and redraw the architecture from memory. Add the source reference beside every support-sensitive statement. Finally, compare your diagram with the Unified CCE design documentation’s terminology for the Avaya Aura PG and redundant Peripheral Gateway deployment.
This order prevents a common failure mode: learning a configuration procedure before learning whether the product versions and topology are supported. It also makes your revision notes useful in a real design review, where the question is usually “why is this supported?” rather than “what does this label mean?”
Hands-on practice when a lab is available
A lab should reproduce the documented integration boundary and include a controlled failure test. Begin with a component inventory and version record. Validate connectivity and registration before testing call routing. Then exercise each documented call-flow category that your environment supports, recording the expected event sequence and the observed result.
Keep a change log. For every change, write the problem statement, the hypothesis, the setting changed, the expected effect, and the rollback. This habit develops troubleshooting discipline and helps distinguish a configuration fix from a coincidental recovery.
Do not build a lab by copying an unsupported topology simply because it is convenient. The Packaged CCE material describes the Avaya integration as a non-reference design and requires the Avaya PG on a separate virtual machine. Use those constraints when constructing the exercise, while checking the applicable matrix for release-specific support.
Study when no lab is available
Replace configuration practice with structured design drills. Given a stated CCE release, Avaya release, PG arrangement, and VRU requirement, produce a support decision, a call-flow diagram, a dependency list, and a verification plan. Mark each conclusion as confirmed, inferred, or unresolved.
Use fault-injection questions on paper: What would you check if routing succeeds but the VRU path fails? What evidence would distinguish an unsupported version from a bad route? What changes if one member of a redundant PG pair is unavailable? The point is not to invent command output; it is to practice choosing the next reliable source or test.
If an answer depends on a version or option not shown in the allowed documentation, say so. That is stronger preparation than filling the gap with a confident but unsupported detail.
A practical four-stage roadmap
A staged plan works best: verify the exam first, build the architecture model second, test support and call-flow reasoning third, and perform a final evidence review last. The stages can be compressed or extended according to your background, but none should be skipped merely to reach a booking date.
Use completion criteria instead of an arbitrary schedule. Move forward when you can explain the design, cite the governing source, trace the relevant flow, and identify what remains release-dependent. This approach is especially important because no official objective list or exam delivery detail is available in the supplied evidence.
Stage one: confirm the target
Contact the exam owner or authorized Avaya program channel and ask for the current exam identifier, official objectives, eligibility rules, registration route, and delivery options. Keep the response with your study records. If the owner cannot confirm the title, pause exam-specific spending and study only the underlying implementation skills.
Pearson VUE’s Avaya OnVUE page says Pearson VUE no longer delivers exams for the testing program reached through that page and directs candidates to the testing program for current details. Therefore, do not assume Pearson VUE is the correct booking channel for this title.
Stage two: build the design map
Create a one-page architecture diagram containing Avaya Aura Contact Center, the Avaya PG, Cisco Unified CCE, any ICM-to-ICM Gateway, the Network VRU, and the relevant call destinations. Add arrows for control and routing information, then annotate where redundancy and virtual-machine placement apply.
Write a short explanation of why the Avaya PG is separate in the documented Packaged CCE design and why redundant PG deployment matters in the Unified CCE design documentation. Keep the release context next to each statement so that notes do not become falsely universal.
Stage three: rehearse implementation decisions
Work through three call-flow exercises using pre-route, translation-route, and post-route as the named cases. For each, document the expected sequence, the evidence you would collect, and the likely ownership of each troubleshooting step. Add a separate Network VRU exercise using the documented Unified CVP Type 10 detail in its exact Packaged CCE context.
Then perform compatibility drills. Given a proposed release combination, start with the matrix and classify the design as explicitly supported, not found, or requiring confirmation. Never convert “not found” into “supported.”
Stage four: final readiness review
A candidate is ready for an implementation-focused assessment when they can explain the topology without notes, distinguish a reference statement from a non-reference design, trace each documented call-flow category, use the compatibility matrix as the controlling source, and identify a sensible validation test for a failure scenario.
Before scheduling, recheck the official program status and any newly supplied candidate guide. Remove outdated notes, especially those based on historical Avaya or Symposium terminology. Keep the source URLs and publication context beside claims that could change with a product release.
Mistakes that weaken preparation
The most damaging preparation errors are not small terminology slips; they are unsupported assumptions about scope, release, and exam availability. Correct them by attaching every technical claim to a product version and source, and by treating missing official exam information as a decision point rather than an invitation to guess.
A strong study record should make uncertainty visible. If you cannot tell whether a feature is supported, write “unverified” and identify the document or program contact needed to resolve it. This is the same discipline required when reviewing a production design.
Mistaking related documentation for an exam blueprint
Cisco interoperability documents can define useful implementation knowledge, but they do not prove the content or weighting of an Avaya exam with this title. Do not label Cisco sections as official exam domains, and do not create percentages from the amount of text devoted to a topic.
If the sponsor later provides a blueprint, map each objective to a source and mark gaps. Until then, describe your preparation as technical readiness for Avaya Aura Contact Center integration, not as coverage of a verified question distribution.
Ignoring the non-reference designation
A non-reference design should make you more cautious, not more confident. Candidates often memorize a component arrangement and apply it to every deployment. Instead, ask whether the topology, release, option, and support statement all match the documented scenario.
For every design answer, include the qualifier that controls it. “Supported in the Packaged CCE non-reference design” is materially safer than “always supported.” This wording also helps you recognize when a question depends on a release-specific source.
Using old names without checking support
Searching only for Avaya Aura Contact Center can hide relevant Symposium-era material, while using old material without checking dates can produce obsolete conclusions. Maintain a terminology cross-reference, then verify feature support in the applicable compatibility documentation.
The Automated Administrator example shows why this matters: the matrix records a specific unsupported feature and release combination. Do not generalize that one restriction to every feature or release.
Booking before confirming the channel
Do not purchase a voucher, choose a test center, or assume online delivery until the exam owner confirms the current process. The permitted Pearson VUE page does not confirm active delivery for this program; it says Pearson VUE no longer delivers the exams for the testing program reached there.
A practical booking checklist includes the verified exam identifier, sponsor, registration URL, candidate eligibility, identification requirements, rescheduling rules, and delivery method. None of those details should be filled from an unverified third-party page.
What to do next
First, verify whether the exam is currently offered and obtain its official objectives. Second, download the applicable Cisco compatibility and design documents and record their release context. Third, build the architecture map and call-flow exercises described here. Finally, review every unresolved claim with the exam owner or the current product documentation before scheduling.
If the title is confirmed, use the official blueprint as the controlling study list and this guide as a reasoning framework. If it is not confirmed, do not represent the title as a live certification target. Continue developing the documented interoperability skills, but keep certification claims separate from technical preparation.
The most valuable final artifact is a compact implementation dossier: a version inventory, support decision, component diagram, flow traces, failure checks, terminology map, and source register. It gives you something concrete to revise and exposes gaps that broad reading can conceal.
Source register for verification
Use Cisco’s Packaged CCE design material for the documented Avaya PG, gateway, call-flow, Network VRU, and separate virtual-machine statements: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cust_contact/contact_center/pcce/pcce_12_6_2/design/guide/pcce_b_soldg-for-packaged-cce-12_6_2/pcce_b_soldg-for-packaged-cce-12_6_chapter_01001.html
Use the Cisco Unified CCE compatibility matrix for supported configurations, version boundaries, the supersession rule, terminology, and the Automated Administrator restriction: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cust_contact/contact_center/icm_enterprise/ucce_compatibility/matrix/Contact_Center_Enterprise_Solution_Compatibility_Matrix_Release_12_5.html
Use the Avaya Aura Contact Center ACD Supplement for historical integration documentation: https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cust_contact/contact_center/icm_enterprise/acd_supplements/ged423.pdf
Use Cisco’s technical-reference list to check the catalogued ACD Supplement entry and its stated date: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/customer-collaboration/unified-contact-center-enterprise/products-technical-reference-list.html
Use the Unified CCE design documentation to review the Avaya Aura PG without AAS option and redundant Peripheral Gateway wording: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cust_contact/contact_center/icm_enterprise/icm_enterprise_15_0_1/design/guide/ucce_b_ucce_soldg-for-unified-cce-1501/rcct_m_contact-center-enterprise-solutions-overview_15_0.html
Use Pearson VUE’s Avaya page only to understand the stated delivery-status warning, not as confirmation that this exam can be booked: https://www.pearsonvue.com/us/en/avaya/onvue.html
Conclusion
The evidence supports a focused implementation study path around Avaya Aura Contact Center interoperability with Cisco Unified CCE: architecture boundaries, Avaya PG placement, redundant deployment, call-flow tracing, Network VRU context, compatibility control, and legacy terminology. It does not support claims about a current Avaya exam blueprint or booking process. Confirm the certification with its owner first, then use the official objectives and release-specific documentation to turn this technical framework into a final study plan.
Related exams
- 3300 exam — Avaya Aura Contact Center Administration
- 3301 exam — Avaya Aura Contact Center Maintenance and Troubleshooting
- 3312 exam — Avaya Aura® Contact Center Administration Exam
- 3313 exam — Avaya Aura® Contact Center Maintenance and Troubleshooting Exam
- 6209 exam — Avaya Aura Contact Center CCT and Multimedia Implementation