IT is instructed as it is told by the higher ups. Nuff said.
Helpdesk is in place to track the work, but ends up being more of a barrier than anything else. A wedge between the IT staff and the clients.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
True, the IT Department could hide behind the ticketing system.
However, it is up to the IT staff to make sure that doesn't happen. Accept all forms of help desk requests (ticket, email, phone call, on the floor), keep the requester in the loop, be pleasant and respectful, and you will make the user satisfied with the service.
However, it is up to the IT staff to make sure that doesn't happen. Accept all forms of help desk requests (ticket, email, phone call, on the floor), keep the requester in the loop, be pleasant and respectful, and you will make the user satisfied with the service.
If someone has difficulty using our helpdesk system, it's my job to figure out why and either (quickly) train them, fix the system, or key in the request for them. They just want their problem solved, not to deal with the helpdesk problem. An IT person who gets on his high horse about it will alienate the users and make IT look bad.
An IT department is also a customer services department. If you want your personnel to value your contribution to the company take down barriers to good service.
Making the repairs quickly is a great concept. But there has to be an adequate number of staff. I work in an IT department that has 3000+ computers and 200+ printers that all need maintenance or repairs. We have 4 staff members to do the work. Most of my work orders are "Overdue." Hiring more staff members will not happen.
Either your SLAs need adjusting or your boss is falling down on the job. At some point, somebody needs to run the numbers and point out that the cost of defective computers and printers is MORE than the cost to hire an additional tech.
My boss keeps putting in for more help. But the school district (did I mention that I work for a school district) says there is no money to hire more help. "Overdue" seems to be a way of life here at the scool.
Ouch. Do you at least get a chance to catch up during the summer break?
If the help desk is dealing with the general public I'd consider them a customer service department. But if they're dealing with other employees I'd rather they spend more time fixing things and keeping things working than trying to provide a good customer experience.
They may be there to fix your printer. But even tough that may be a priority for you, it may not be for the company. They be working on something more important.
A perfect help desk is one I never need to talk too.
They may be there to fix your printer. But even tough that may be a priority for you, it may not be for the company. They be working on something more important.
A perfect help desk is one I never need to talk too.
One of our goals is to open (and close) as many "by the way" tickets as we can. We open the ticket ourselves, so customers do not have to deal with the help desk, and the customer gets the problem fixed immediately.
The only times we don't open by-the-way tickets is when the initial assessment shows that repair will require parts we don't have in stock or when workload prevents spending additional time at that customer site.
The only times we don't open by-the-way tickets is when the initial assessment shows that repair will require parts we don't have in stock or when workload prevents spending additional time at that customer site.
Help desk don't hide behind the ticketing system. They are infront of it. The business is the one hiding behind the ticketing system. A painful convoluted one doesn't help IT at all.
Hiding behind the ticketing system = waiting until the user puts in a ticket before Help Desk will look into the issue.
I would rather have my staff solve minor problems when they hear it as they walk by than tell the user to put in a ticket. Help Desk can put in a ticket when they fix the problem.
I have had Help Desk staff who tried to hide behind the system. They learn very quickly that hiding is unacceptable in my department.
I would rather have my staff solve minor problems when they hear it as they walk by than tell the user to put in a ticket. Help Desk can put in a ticket when they fix the problem.
I have had Help Desk staff who tried to hide behind the system. They learn very quickly that hiding is unacceptable in my department.
The OP was talking about deliberately hard to use ticketing systems.
Wish you ran our IS dept, there again, if you did, your boss might smack your wrist very hard, for just going around fixing things willy nilly as though that was your job or something...
Wish you ran our IS dept, there again, if you did, your boss might smack your wrist very hard, for just going around fixing things willy nilly as though that was your job or something...
I have a very demanding boss. Fortunately, he is very supportive as well.
I understood the article. Rather than commiserate, I like to offer solutions.
Any good help desk system should accept emails and voicemail attachments as well as direct entry.
Any good Help Desk Department should have a help desk hotline with all the technicians set up in a hunt group.
Any good Help Desk Technician will accept help desk requests by email, IM, or a conversation in the hall. If they can fix it and are not busy, they fix it on the spot and log it in the ticketing system. If they are busy or they are not capable of fixing it, they log it in and it gets assigned to someone else.
All the technicians have Blackberries so logging in a ticket while on the go is easy.
I understood the article. Rather than commiserate, I like to offer solutions.
Any good help desk system should accept emails and voicemail attachments as well as direct entry.
Any good Help Desk Department should have a help desk hotline with all the technicians set up in a hunt group.
Any good Help Desk Technician will accept help desk requests by email, IM, or a conversation in the hall. If they can fix it and are not busy, they fix it on the spot and log it in the ticketing system. If they are busy or they are not capable of fixing it, they log it in and it gets assigned to someone else.
All the technicians have Blackberries so logging in a ticket while on the go is easy.
Consider yourself lucky.
Take note of the instances where there's a tech per 1000 machines....or more. No help desk....no hunt groups. Nothing. And it's not going to change because the leadership doesn't want it to. Costs money. One guy, many sites...on the road.
That guy simply cannot stop for everyone that wants something and wants to circumvent the channels.
Yes...that does happen in the real world.
Take note of the instances where there's a tech per 1000 machines....or more. No help desk....no hunt groups. Nothing. And it's not going to change because the leadership doesn't want it to. Costs money. One guy, many sites...on the road.
That guy simply cannot stop for everyone that wants something and wants to circumvent the channels.
Yes...that does happen in the real world.
First of all, if your place has things broken willy nilly, you are putting the carriage in front of the horse! You need an entire IT strategy that works, because the one you (they?) are using doesn't. While there needs to be a sense of priorities, if there is that much in need of doing that a tech cannot take care of something else while he/she is already there, it is a symptom of a broken system.
"...if you did, your boss might smack your wrist very hard..."
Yeah, I totally get this. The person that tries the hardest is usually the one in the most trouble, while the slackers never get noticed or reprimanded. That isn't just IT, that is life in general. (And God Forbid someone actually gets something accomplished...)
Back to the subject:
I am frequently flagged down or waved over while walking through the offices. I would NEVER give someone a rubber stamped reply like "...fill out a ticket..." Sometimes they are asking me for something that is beyond my limited authority to do, and then I will politely explain that and tell them to send an email to my boss about the problem, and it will trickle back to me with instructions how it is to be handled. Otherwise, if it is a software or hardware issue, I most certainly will fix it right away, or arrange to get back to that person. (I might ask them to send me an email as a reminder. I am forgetful like that, and my co-workers appreciate the honesty as much as I appreciate the reminder.)
I am not the primary IT person here, but I am the primary Help Desk person, and I try very hard to make my customers, (my co-workers) satisfied. Our dept. gets calls and emails. We do not use a ticket system. I suppose that if we were larger, it might become a necessary evil, but right now, email for non-urgent jobs, and phone calls for urgent matters. If I am away from my desk, I get the voice mail message and get back to them as soon as I am able.
"...if you did, your boss might smack your wrist very hard..."
Yeah, I totally get this. The person that tries the hardest is usually the one in the most trouble, while the slackers never get noticed or reprimanded. That isn't just IT, that is life in general. (And God Forbid someone actually gets something accomplished...)
Back to the subject:
I am frequently flagged down or waved over while walking through the offices. I would NEVER give someone a rubber stamped reply like "...fill out a ticket..." Sometimes they are asking me for something that is beyond my limited authority to do, and then I will politely explain that and tell them to send an email to my boss about the problem, and it will trickle back to me with instructions how it is to be handled. Otherwise, if it is a software or hardware issue, I most certainly will fix it right away, or arrange to get back to that person. (I might ask them to send me an email as a reminder. I am forgetful like that, and my co-workers appreciate the honesty as much as I appreciate the reminder.)
I am not the primary IT person here, but I am the primary Help Desk person, and I try very hard to make my customers, (my co-workers) satisfied. Our dept. gets calls and emails. We do not use a ticket system. I suppose that if we were larger, it might become a necessary evil, but right now, email for non-urgent jobs, and phone calls for urgent matters. If I am away from my desk, I get the voice mail message and get back to them as soon as I am able.
Have a toke, get your pipes cleaned out, relax...
It was tongue in cheek type english humour.
It was tongue in cheek type english humour.
Tony,
I did get the humor. (---Uncivilized Yank spelling...) I understood exactly what you meant. I liked your post so that is where I added my comments on the subject. Upon re-reading, I should have phrased things a bit differently in the first paragraph. It does sound like I didn't get your humor, but I did.
Michael
I did get the humor. (---Uncivilized Yank spelling...) I understood exactly what you meant. I liked your post so that is where I added my comments on the subject. Upon re-reading, I should have phrased things a bit differently in the first paragraph. It does sound like I didn't get your humor, but I did.
Michael
"Accept all forms of help desk requests (ticket, email, phone call, on the floor), keep the requester in the loop, be pleasant and respectful, and you will make the user satisfied with the service"
Yes, be respectful, be pleasant, keep the requester up to date. But a formal ticketing process is key to support success. Most importantly if your helpdesk is undermanned (as it is in most companies I've worked for).
Small companies that have maybe 20 or 40 employees, maybe the approach of "anything goes" works, but not when you're dealing with a larger more global company.
For example, what if the support tech is away for a week and they're getting requests for support? If it was in a ticket system, someone else could pick it up. Or what if the technician was working on something just prior to taking their leave? With a ticket system any other tech can view the entire history and get the job done.
The other problem of course is when you try to justify a new tech. It's far easier to show the work being done by reference of tickets than comb through everyone's email, wracking everyone's brains for drive-by support, etc. Tickets show exactly what is being done by the helpdesk, how rapidly support is rendered, who is a common requester, etc.
Last, but not least; a good ticketing system that's properly used by the helpdesk staff also provides a knowledge base for users and for the helpdesk tech who takes the call. Problem loading program ABC with error XYZ? Ah, ok we had that problem last week, solve it by doing DEF.
Yes, be respectful, be pleasant, keep the requester up to date. But a formal ticketing process is key to support success. Most importantly if your helpdesk is undermanned (as it is in most companies I've worked for).
Small companies that have maybe 20 or 40 employees, maybe the approach of "anything goes" works, but not when you're dealing with a larger more global company.
For example, what if the support tech is away for a week and they're getting requests for support? If it was in a ticket system, someone else could pick it up. Or what if the technician was working on something just prior to taking their leave? With a ticket system any other tech can view the entire history and get the job done.
The other problem of course is when you try to justify a new tech. It's far easier to show the work being done by reference of tickets than comb through everyone's email, wracking everyone's brains for drive-by support, etc. Tickets show exactly what is being done by the helpdesk, how rapidly support is rendered, who is a common requester, etc.
Last, but not least; a good ticketing system that's properly used by the helpdesk staff also provides a knowledge base for users and for the helpdesk tech who takes the call. Problem loading program ABC with error XYZ? Ah, ok we had that problem last week, solve it by doing DEF.
No it doesn't. We're slightly bigger then the 20 to 40 you mention sire_tim, but not much. A long time ago I managed to get (most) people off the ambush tactics generally used when I first took on the role. On the stairwell I would be sweetness and light, but if it's not logged properly I will simply ignore it (unless it's genuinely something major of course - give and take!)
I would suggest a team of two or three might work with an informal approach to Help Desk support, but teams of any size need efficient management, not a fire fighting approach to problem solving. IT management is all about forward thinking not "it's busted so fix it!"
If I can see trends through analysis of the ticket logs then I can be proactive about resolutions. My job as an IT Manager is to manage IT, not fix problems on a break-fix / headless chicken approach to problem solving because users are too lazy, or simply uneducated to the benefits of logging issues properly.
I would suggest a team of two or three might work with an informal approach to Help Desk support, but teams of any size need efficient management, not a fire fighting approach to problem solving. IT management is all about forward thinking not "it's busted so fix it!"
If I can see trends through analysis of the ticket logs then I can be proactive about resolutions. My job as an IT Manager is to manage IT, not fix problems on a break-fix / headless chicken approach to problem solving because users are too lazy, or simply uneducated to the benefits of logging issues properly.
...needs a good ticket system.
I'm an advocate of OTRS with the ITSM plugins for change management.
If your management thinks you should be doing the "headless chicken" thing....to borrow Tommy's phrase...and responding to every user grab because they don't want a process, I promise you you'll soon be ready to leave that job.
You controlling tech...not the other way around...is what it's about. Having a keyword searchable ticket system, assuming the techs actually document the problems thoroughly, is invaluable to avoid reinventing the wheel for recurring problems, and getting additions to things like your FAQ's.
Of course users don't like it because they want your attention right now. They want to go the head of the line. It's up to management to decide how the priority structure should work. This is usually where the problem is. Management tends to want everything for nothing...just like the rest of us. But scapegoating IT by using the users' lack of technology knowledge is too easy and available to not take advantage of.
I'm an advocate of OTRS with the ITSM plugins for change management.
If your management thinks you should be doing the "headless chicken" thing....to borrow Tommy's phrase...and responding to every user grab because they don't want a process, I promise you you'll soon be ready to leave that job.
You controlling tech...not the other way around...is what it's about. Having a keyword searchable ticket system, assuming the techs actually document the problems thoroughly, is invaluable to avoid reinventing the wheel for recurring problems, and getting additions to things like your FAQ's.
Of course users don't like it because they want your attention right now. They want to go the head of the line. It's up to management to decide how the priority structure should work. This is usually where the problem is. Management tends to want everything for nothing...just like the rest of us. But scapegoating IT by using the users' lack of technology knowledge is too easy and available to not take advantage of.
If so, you completely misunderstood what I wrote.
I didn't say do away with the ticketing system. I said make it easy to communicate with the Help Desk Department.
We have ticketing system and we use it to it's full extent. If someone emails or texts a technician directly, the tech knows to immediately forward it to the help desk email box which automatically generates a help desk ticket or paste it in a new ticket. That's what I mean by making it easier for the user.
"what if the support tech is away for a week and they're getting requests for support?" My staff uses email's out of office assistant plus they set up an out of office voicemail. Users are smart and resourceful. They will move on to another way to get our attention if they want to get their problem addressed.
"Or what if the technician was working on something just prior to taking their leave?" My technicians fill out the ticket explaining what they did and where they left off.
"The other problem of course is when you try to justify a new tech. It's far easier to show the work being done by reference of tickets than comb through everyone's email, wracking everyone's brains for drive-by support, etc. Tickets show exactly what is being done by the helpdesk, how rapidly support is rendered, who is a common requester, etc." Again, non-issue. We use a ticketing system.
I didn't say do away with the ticketing system. I said make it easy to communicate with the Help Desk Department.
We have ticketing system and we use it to it's full extent. If someone emails or texts a technician directly, the tech knows to immediately forward it to the help desk email box which automatically generates a help desk ticket or paste it in a new ticket. That's what I mean by making it easier for the user.
"what if the support tech is away for a week and they're getting requests for support?" My staff uses email's out of office assistant plus they set up an out of office voicemail. Users are smart and resourceful. They will move on to another way to get our attention if they want to get their problem addressed.
"Or what if the technician was working on something just prior to taking their leave?" My technicians fill out the ticket explaining what they did and where they left off.
"The other problem of course is when you try to justify a new tech. It's far easier to show the work being done by reference of tickets than comb through everyone's email, wracking everyone's brains for drive-by support, etc. Tickets show exactly what is being done by the helpdesk, how rapidly support is rendered, who is a common requester, etc." Again, non-issue. We use a ticketing system.
And then it;s our fault for using it. I've lost count of the Great new Product that management has been sold without consulting with IT only to find that it's unsuitable for the task but it's IT's Fault that it doesn't work not the Managements or the Vendor who misrepresented it so that they could get a sale.
I saw this back in the days that I worked Mainframes the Sales people said it's a Computer so it will do the job required and that is all that they knew. We have this and have reduced it's price so it's ideal for what you want. Doesn't matter that it uses a different Language to do the job and everything has to be rewritten so it's usable and will cost millions of $.
Management comes down saying we bought you this which cost so many million $ and you want to spend how much on rewriting the software? Or It's a computer so why doesn't it work like the old one that we have just replaced?
You get Management who are only interested in making a Quick Buck who spring for the cheapest option possible and then blame IT when it doesn't work. After all when was the last time a CEO admitted that they messed up and made a mistake rather than saying that the Underlings rejected their "Improvements" and did everything possible to prevent them being successful.
In the case you presented above I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if Management of the Cloud Provider didn't see IE's as a "Weird" browser with "Strange Nonstandard Operations" so instead of shelling out the necessary funds to rewrite their Interface they just do not support IE and tell all potential customers to use a different browser which is more secure or whatever. It's not to improve your Security or whatever it's to save them the necessary funds of supporting a Browser which sets it's own standards and ignores existing Standards at every opportunity.
Col
I saw this back in the days that I worked Mainframes the Sales people said it's a Computer so it will do the job required and that is all that they knew. We have this and have reduced it's price so it's ideal for what you want. Doesn't matter that it uses a different Language to do the job and everything has to be rewritten so it's usable and will cost millions of $.
Management comes down saying we bought you this which cost so many million $ and you want to spend how much on rewriting the software? Or It's a computer so why doesn't it work like the old one that we have just replaced?
You get Management who are only interested in making a Quick Buck who spring for the cheapest option possible and then blame IT when it doesn't work. After all when was the last time a CEO admitted that they messed up and made a mistake rather than saying that the Underlings rejected their "Improvements" and did everything possible to prevent them being successful.
In the case you presented above I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if Management of the Cloud Provider didn't see IE's as a "Weird" browser with "Strange Nonstandard Operations" so instead of shelling out the necessary funds to rewrite their Interface they just do not support IE and tell all potential customers to use a different browser which is more secure or whatever. It's not to improve your Security or whatever it's to save them the necessary funds of supporting a Browser which sets it's own standards and ignores existing Standards at every opportunity.
Col
Not supporting Internet Exploder is a dumb decision from almost every aspect but I doubt it's because of the "Geek" coefficient of the company. More likely is that the developers have told their manager that implementing the system for all major browsers isn't a linear curve in terms of cost and development time. Then the departmental manager or MD (probably an accountant) has decided that it's too expensive to do all of them so instructs the coders to implement one or two and make it the client's problem.
As to the help desk phenomenon, nobody seems to have ever gotten this right. I know how I'd do it but, once again am forestalled by the financial director because of the costs.
Penny-wise, pound-foolish is the order of the day in contemporary IT.
As to the help desk phenomenon, nobody seems to have ever gotten this right. I know how I'd do it but, once again am forestalled by the financial director because of the costs.
Penny-wise, pound-foolish is the order of the day in contemporary IT.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
