IT Employment

Ask something
Discussion Locked

The Tier 1-2-3 Structure is FLAWED!

0 helpful
3 replies

by penguinsrule

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

I notice that many IT environments use the Tier 1, 2, 3 structure for their environments. In theory it seems to work ok, Tier 1 is the help desk, Tier 2 is essentially desktop support, and Tier 3 is more specialized support or a project driven layer. The trouble with the Tier system is that most employers pay people in Tier 3 more than Tier 1 and 2, Tier 1 and 2 are viewed as a step down from Tier 3, etc. Most likely if you change the structure, you'll always have a helpdesk - Tier 1, but to keep good Tier 2 people, you're going to have to pay them like Tier 3 people and view them of equivalent merit, or they will all leave and go elsewhere or try to do everything they can to get to tier 3. The structure just breeds instability and just plain doesn't work. I've been in IT 15 years, and I've never seen it work well yet.

comments?

3 replies

by oldefar

The 3-tier system is a support structure to balance cost with service requirements. It is based on a similar 3-tier skill set of recognition, knowledge, and finally understanding.

Tier 1 identifies and validates the user, records the problem, and applies a scripted response for problem resolution. The bulk of the problems are resolved with the initial call by tier 1. As an entry level job, pay is also the lowest. Skill level is recognition.

Tier 2 handles the one in ten calls that either are not recognized by tier 1 as routine or that require some specialized knowledge of the OS or applications. It may also do routine maintenance activity and active problem resolution (internally found and corrected versus user reported). Skill level is knowledge and an expanded range of recognition.

Tier 3 handles problems that are beyond the recognition and knowledge of tiers 1 and 2. This involves an in depth understanding of OS, application, and systems typically associated with advanced training and experience. Skill level is understanding, an advanced range of knowledge, and an advanced range of recognition.

The problem you have is not with the 3 tiers, but with compensation. The problem occurs when those at a tier 1 or tier 2 position have expanded their recognition, knowledge, and achieved understanding but have no tier 3 position to advance into. The business issue is that the value at each tier defines the skills and compensation. More skill does not necessarily add more business value. The solution for the employee is to show added value at that level, perhaps through customer retention or new revenue sources.

Adding to the problem is the ever increasing skills of users, reliability of hardware and software, and the outsourcing of IT functions. This reduces the ratio of support to installed base such that expanding IT across new verticals does not involve a linear expansion in support positions. Add offshoring to the mix, thanks to global communications, and the competitive rate for each tier is now based on global rather than local employee compensation costs.

by penguinsrule

Any person who is a GOOD tier 2 person is also capable of doing tier 3 work, so how do you keep them on Tier 2? That's my big question. If you can't keep people on Tier 2, then shouldn't this be re-evaluated? On paper, this works great, but
in practice it doesn't work at all. All of your arguments make sense, and I agree with everything, but if I am a tier 2 person, I'm going to be working hard to be tier 3, so do you really want a bunch of people on tier 2 that aren't as motivated as tier 3? Wouldn't it be better for tier 2 and tier 3 to be the same level but a different function? As far as a question of whether the tier 3 person provides more value to the business I question that. They provide different value. Since Tier 3 is valued more, then they won't get as much value out of tier 2. Please forgive me for sounding agitated as I know that I am quite highly opinionated about this issue. Thanks for your views and I appreciate your thoughtfulness and for sharing with me.

by oldefar

I have to disagree that any good tier 2 can also do tier 3. The issue is debth and breadth of understanding. Often a tier 2 will become extremely deep in their ability on a particular area but lack the breadth to handle system interaction.

Motivations vary by individual, but tend to be tied to one of five currencies - time, money, security, knowledge, and prestige. I am beginning to think another currency - fairness - may exist, but it may only be a subset of either security or prestige. Having a tier 2 and tier 3 does not always mean having different pay. A tier 2 with great depth on a particular application or system may be as valuable as the tier 3 who has less depth but has it across multiple systems or applications. This depends on the business. It is possible to pay the same, so the issue becomes one of prestige. That is a mindset that management can address in how they value various jobs.

Other motivations may relate to time, security, and knowledge. If tier 3 is always on call and tier 2 is a scheduled shift, some will be motivated to be one or the other. In a dynamic environment where a particular system or application may be eliminated, the tier 3 position offers more security. For some, learning and understanding everything about one thing is a driver. For others, learning and understanding something about everything is more important. The former will prefer a tier 2 slot while the latter will gravitate towards tier 3.

The same works for tier 1. Helping a great number of people with problems may be more satisfying to someone than applying their expertise to a smaller number of issues. This is a prestige item, and has to do with our unique self images.

Managers often mistake the motivations of their employees or worse apply their own motivations to their perspective of the employees. Maybe that tier 1 performer is happy at tier 1 and sees no gain in "advancing" to tier 2. Maybe that tier 2 employee is motivated to understand everything about the area they support and has no interest in a broader scope where they will be unable to achieve the same level of understanding.

This discussion is closed to new replies.