Dear Dan,
Dan Schrager wrote:
> 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.
I agree with you. The ticketer does not really need to assess which
regional organization the offending site is part as this information is
published and therefore known.
>
> 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 ?
I totally 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.
I do not agree with this since there is the danger that a ticket gets
totally ignored.
The person responsible for the ticket, assigning the ticket to the ROC,
should also make sure that an answer is provided. Therefore he/she needs
to be notified if nothing is happening.
> 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...
:-)
Flavia
|