Helpdesk tasks

I see option # 2 as the best answer.
Tasks should be completed according to priority. What needs to be accomplished first? If there is no priority, then the plan method should prevail.

All tasks should be assigned a priority. All tasks should be assigned to staff. And staff should be allowed sufficient time to complete their tasks (remembering of course, that some tasks require more time nad effort and that "quantity" is less important than "quality").

If you go with option one, then you can build staff toward certain proficiencies.

If you go with option two, then staff will grab what they know... never expanding, never learning.

I seen this done several ways and number 1 is the way to go. You have to have someone keeping an eye on project management and making sure things get done when they should. If you let people grab the tasks they want, then things, like "writing documentation" usually don't get done. Let then staff have input on what they want to do, but make sure every task is assingned. But that's for projects. If you are just talking about trouble calls that come in, that can be handled on a rotating basis, like whoever is free takes the next call. You really need to evaluate the staff and see how they work and find a style or method that works with your group.

The answer is a mix of both.
For any project, a Project plan is a must as this defines your mile stones.
The mile stones are major achievements in the project that are to be highlighted.

These milestones are then broken into smaller quantifiable "bits" and man days are put against each "bit" of work.
People are assigned against these "bits".
Pleople have different skill levels, and as a person responsible for the success of the project, you have to have each task time bound.

So if you do not have time frames and task assignment, projects shall slip... as people have different level of aptitudes for tasks..Some people can do some tasks better than others, so if you assign tasks to people, you shall get a better result, rather than having a LIFO sort of an arrangement, as then you would not know who is being assigned a task. Tracking is also difficult in such projects.

PM
As using option 2,

You really need a bit of both, especially in a helpdesk environment. Things can, and do, come up that takes precedence over everything. After all if you have a major server/application/user down, it really doesn't matter what you have scheduled; youhave to fix it immediately! The trick is to create a schedule/plan that has enough flexibility to accomodate the emergencies that we all know will come up. I would suggest scheduling the routine tasks (like backups or training) that the helpdesk is responsible for, but leave room in that schedule to handle calls that come in. If, by some miracle, you don't have calls, there are always plenty of tasks available that can be done during that time.

The key to helpdesk management is correct prioritisation and avoidance of "cherry-picking" (where you allow people to select the tasks that they would like to perform). In order to correctly manage tasks, you should have a call-logging management tool which will assign tasks a priority and which will allow you to assign specific tasks to your staff in a "fair" manner.

The problem with option 1 is that it does not take urgency into account. Option 2 is closer to the desired solution, but there should be an agreed mechanism for how tasks are farmed out fairly.

If no call logging system is being used a simple system is to assign incoming tasks sequentially - Chris gets the first in, Sam the next, Mary the next... and so on without regard for staff preferences or even expertise since the less experienced team member should ideally be able to request training or help from a more experienced team member - or follow established written procedures - with each team member being equally responsible for the tasks assigned to them and for the success of the department in general.
This provides cross-training and prevents cherry picking. A consistent method of follow-up would need to be implemented to assure competent and timely completion of assigned tasks.
For tasks that require hands-on work on a large number of workstations, such as a site-wide roll-out of new software, project planning involving all staff is the only way to assure a clean implementation and prevent messy nervous breakdowns among staff - or worse.... :-)

The pros for #1:

* People have flexibility
* Things are organized
* Things get done more efficiently

The cons for #1:

* People could take forever

The pros for #2:

* Work usually gets done
* Time is managed, allowing people to take breaks.

The cons for #2:

* Work might not get completed because the employee ran out of time.

* Amount of work that needs to be done in the time frame may exceed the users ability to do it.

#2 is the choice most people use. I would probably go with both. sometimes #1, and sometimes #2.

This question was auto closed due to inactivity