 |
 |
Dan, the escalation tickets are sent automatically and I then agree with you. The GGUS TPM (Ticket Processing Managers) normally contact supporters to make sure an answer is provided before an escalation e-mail is generated. For CIC-on-Duty (COD), this should be taken care by the COD team. They normally allow for 3 working days (if I am not mistaken - Piotr or Judit can correct me ...) before contacting the site. Flavia Dan Schrager wrote: > 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. > > >