![]() ![]() Whether it’s priority, impact, or urgency - it doesn’t matter - I’m going to choose the options I feel will get my issue resolved as quickly as possible. If I’m an end user and I need my issue fixed ASAP, then I’m likely to go with this: It sounds like a solid plan, doesn’t it?īut are end users best positioned to determine the priority with which their issue should be resolved? The downside of letting end users influence the priority of tickets And the higher the impact and urgency, the higher the priority. Through this, the service desk hopes to accurately determine the priority of the incident tickets - usually through their priority matrix. In fact, impact and urgency can be commonly seen on self-service end-user submission forms (within service desk tools) these days. ![]() Many, if not most, of the service desks I’ve worked with don’t let end users choose the priority of the incident ticket while they log their issue, but they do trust the end user to select the impact and urgency. Having fewer IT failures that cause high-priority incidents is the obvious (and flippant) answer, but seriously - how can we alter end-user behaviour to make the lives of service desk agents a little easier? What can end users influence? So how can service desks help themselves by reducing the number of high-priority tickets in their queues - allowing them to focus attention on the real priorities? ![]() But end users don’t care about this - if they have an IT issue to report, they usually perceive it as high priority. A priority matrix is a useful tool which lets service desk agents assign priority to incident tickets based on their impact and urgency. As per ITIL, priority is a factor of impact and urgency, which means that the priority of an incident is determined both by the effect it has on business and the time available for repair (or avoidance) before the incident’s impact is felt by the business. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |