Hi everybody,
I have noticed that it appears to be a problem related to the way
tickets are handled in general.
I have received tickets from various issuers and then in order to reply
to them I had to get access to various centers.
I find this situation wrong and I would suggest that the "ticketer"
first assesses which regional organization the "offending" site is part
of and then submits the ticket through that regional organization
designated office.
This would mean for the "ticketers" to get access to all regional offices.
Since there are far less "ticketers" than "ticketees" (I could guess it
from the fact that I am a "ticketee" but not a "ticketer") this would be
better than ending up with all "ticketees" getting access to all
regional offices.
Don't you agree ?
There is another issue related to escalation.
I would suggest that escalation should occur only if the reported
problem is not solved at site level.
Escalation should not happen just because a ticket has been ignored for
too long (while the problem is already gone, in a cab, divine
intervention, etc.).
"Ticketees" may prefer to solve the problem first and then ignore a
ticket for lack of access to "ticketer"'s office.
Some human intervention would be required to close the ticket from
"ticketer"'s part. He is, after all, the one who generated the ticket.
And there are a few "trigger-happy" "ticketers", for sure...
Regards,
Dan
|