Hi Flavia,
I don't know exactly how escalation is started; if an escalation ticket
is generated by a human, then he should check first whether the problem
reported in the first place is still there and only if it is still
unsolved he should press the escalation button; if the escalation is
triggered by a computer after a certain amount of time, the original
ticketer should be so kind to check the status of the problem (using the
same means he used when noting the problem at first) before escalation
occurs and if so is the case he should close the ticket himself.
Regards,
Dan
Flavia Donno wrote:
> 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
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System
> at the Tel-Aviv University CC.
|