1:1 Phone Call to Ticket Ratio
I am a Service Delivery Consultant and have a question about something that I regularly come across in my dealings with Service Desks.
9 out of 10 service desks that I am brought in to 'fix' have a phone call to ticket percentage of between 50% - 60% (i.e. of 100 phone calls received at the Service Desk only 50 - 60 new tickets are generated).
There are a raft of issues that this causes such as giving people an excuse as to why they are not raising tickets, it means that a lot of the first point of contact incidents are not logged, and if we only understand what 50% - 60% of our phone calls relate to then we're unable to put appropriate measures in place to address the other 40% - 50% of phone calls.
What I do is implement a 1:1 phone call to ticket ratio. This means that when a call such as a follow up call is made to the desk an extra ticket is logged and closed with the name of the assignment group being followed up in the description, and the CALL number being followed up in the call title (unfortunately we use HP Service Center and therefore use CALL records - these are Interaction records in later versions of HP Service Manager).
By doing this we always increase our ratio to around 95% of tickets being logged, with 10% - 15% of these being follow up calls. We are then able to go back to each of the resolver teams with a dollar figure (Cost per contact * number of follow up calls generated per team) of them not following up / managing their tickets appropriately. For example, one of our teams we receive 20 follow up calls for each day. Our Cost per Contact is $25 so we can then provide their management with this inormation (i.e. 20 follow up calls * 5 days * $25 per call - this means they cost us $2500 per week, or $10,825 per month, by not keeping on top of their tickets).
I receive a LOT of resistence from people saying that this shouldn't be done, usually the reason is that it is 'manipulating the reporting', or that it is not best practice....
And this is my question... is there a best practice model for this? And, if we aren't going to raise a new ticket for all phone calls then how else do we ensure all appropriate tickets are being logged?
Most people also see logging follow up calls as doubling up our work, but in my opinion it is a truer picture of what the desk are doing.. and of course allows you to identify which teams are costing the desk time & money.
Any thoughts on this would be appreciated..
You may have missed the fact that the ITIL Wizard is satire. Normally I'd leave you to the mercy of the Wizard, but you've put so much effort into the question that I feel we owe you a straight answer.
There's no "official" good practice for ticketing in ITIL. In fact it is distinctly ambiguous about the whole contact vs incident thing.
My short answer is that this is a business process design issue: it is the client's decision what they want recorded and reported.
A longer answer is that I applaud HP for creating a separate entity for interactions. This is as it should be, and many tools don't have it which means they can't report precisely the sort of data that you are referring to. But it only works if there is a separate Incident entity with a many-to-one relationship between Interactions and Requests/Incidents: I assume the HP tool has that. We MUST track Requests and Incidents.
When others object to tracking Interactions I can only assume either (a) they are confusing Interactions with Incidents or (b) they want to hide data. It is never a bad thing to make costs transparent except for those causing the costs.
That's my reply. Anyone else?