ITIL a barrier for good customer service?? Or an excuse?

An open discussion on issues related directly or primarily to the service or help desk.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jim777
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:00 pm

Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:20 pm

So a new ITSM tool has been purchased for our organisation. Trouble is some of our users want us to tell their team when incidents have been resolved rather than just a single user.

The message from upstairs is that we can't set the contact for a ticket as a team, it has to be an individual. Why? Because ITIL says so. This can't be true can it? Surely as long as the incidents are resolved and the user is / users are communicated to then that's what's important. If we're enabling our customers to provide the service that they need to provide then where's the problem.

I can get around this with some user training admittedly, but want to automate this as much as possible. The sticking point for me is the ITIL reference though, is there some strange rule that says incidents can only be reported by individuals?


User avatar
UKVIKING
ITIL Expert
ITIL Expert
Posts: 3636
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:00 pm
Location: London, UK

Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:12 am

Jim

the barrier to good customer service unfortunately is the people who provide customer service. Not ITIL

What does ITIL state - the customer needs to be informed about incidents especially when they are resolved. The users use what is being delivered .i.i the service.

There should be a service owner, support group, etc. as part of the service creation

So first the Incident mgmt. tool needs to be able to be linked to the failed service and report to the customer (owner or manager of that service) so that they know the service being impacted is being worked to return ot service

The Service Desk is the one who manages the incidents and does the communications to the users - as that is their role in life. They do not resolve or work on the incidents t. they only manage - i.e.. track that they are getting handled IAW priority ./ severity etc.

So the responsibility to contact the users is their responsibility - if this is an internal customer / users or if this is an external customer user group

Either way, the Service Desk should have reference information as to such things - as can any tool.

A ticket should be raised by an Individual - who is the point of contact. If they want the users to be informed - they can tell them as well - based on the status of the ticket you know

if there is no coherent communication plan
John Hardesty
ITSM Manager's Certificate (Red Badge)

Change Management is POWER & CONTROL. /....evil laughter
User avatar
Jim777
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:00 pm

Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:19 pm

Thanks. There's nothing in what you've said that states that we shouldn't enable individuals to raise tickets tagged against a shared mailbox / account. I think it's a slicker more user-focused approach to give them what they want rather than hide behind excuses of ITIL (which don't appear to be accurate).

My proposed approach will not negatively impact on users, or the Service Desk but what we're being asked to do will cause delays in terms of resolution. Common sense is all important, and it sounds like ITIL supports that.
User avatar
UKVIKING
ITIL Expert
ITIL Expert
Posts: 3636
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:00 pm
Location: London, UK

Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:17 am

Jim

ITIL is a set of advice on how to do IT Service Management effective and efficient

It is a set of recommendations nothing more

If it works in your company to do something one way

then that is best practice for your company to do it that way
John Hardesty
ITSM Manager's Certificate (Red Badge)

Change Management is POWER & CONTROL. /....evil laughter
User avatar
Walter
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2018 8:00 pm

Fri Mar 16, 2018 6:26 am

Hi Jim,

We also work with ITSM. Let me describe how our teams work. I'm in a very large international company of more than 10 000 support staff. We have a very large UK and Europe customer base. So our Change Management and Technical Teams are servicing customer rather than in house support.

We find that assigning Changes to teams end up in a "I did not know about it" type of discussions so we started assigning to individuals. Raising a Changes is triggered by the customer raising a request for service. That request is assigned to the resolver and he then gathers the required information and raises the Change. The Change Task is assigned the resolver and we create additional Tasks where required if there are more than one resolver.

Each resolver has an SLA to close down a Task with appropriate outcome criteria once they have completed their work.

When we as Change Management has reviewed and approved a Change, there is an approval notification sent to the resolvers and a select audience. This notification is a template and is sent to the resolver(s) the customer selected audience, our Service Management team and any other individuals or teams specified in the Change details (there is a section in the Change details asking if communications needs to be sent and to name them).

So the "audience" sees when the notification of approval goes out, it contains details on start and end dates and also an instruction to reply to all once implementation starts and again reply to all once it is completed. A further instruction to provide a small summary of the outcome on the Change.

This keeps all involved, i.e. requester, management teams and implementers, up to date on the progression of all Changes.

All these comms are also work logged for audit trail and also for any that has the reference number to check on progress on the Change itself.
Post Reply