TJ,
If a customer does not respond to a request for information in 5 business days, it makes sense to close the ticket – an action which is defined in the SLA. Equally, if an assigned technical team does not respond to a customer’s request, then the customer should see an escalation process – that action is not defined in this SLA, but will benefit everyone with its inclusion. Escalation in this case applies only to no-response situations – we understand fulfillment and resolution can often take longer, and fall within their applicable service SLAs.
Because there will likely be many issues/requests that do *not* have SLAs governing them, this SLA could ensure appropriate response times to avoid potentially orphaned requests. Other SLAs may define their notification processes differently, but customers should have some specific baseline communication process to reference when their request does not fall within a particular SLA. And as all of the new standards and SLAs are built upon the Help Desk and Help.UNM as the gateway for ALL communication – it makes sense for this SLA to define specific, minimum notification limits.
This SLA can work best if it defines appropriate notification to customers, and sensible escalation procedures if the assigned technical team does not respond to customer requests. A benefit of escalation – say there’s a technical issue where teams are simply not getting Help.UNM notifications. If the SLA triggers a direct inquiry to the team and Help Desk personnel automatically, the inquiry would reveal a larger issue with Help.UNM’s messaging functionality. The technical glitch behind a communication breakdown is identified and fixed as a result. Along that line, if the SLA automatically defines escalation and intervention, it also safeguards the relationships that customers, Help Desk, and technical teams share – the SLA can be the ‘bad guy.’
We believe that all UNM customers would benefit from better visibility into who they will work with, and how their requests are being processed, so Law offers the following for the Service Desk SLA review committee:
• Within 1 business day of ticket submission, requestor must receive notification identifying the assigned department (ticket owner)
• The following cycle applies to customer tickets/emails at initiation and at any point after a customer response
-After A business days of no response from UNM IT assigned technician/ticket owner, Help Desk contacts UNM IT assigned technician/ticket owner for update
-After B additional business days of no response, director of assigned UNM IT department contacted by Help Desk for update
-After C days of no response, UNM IT assigned technician/ticket owner and director of assigned UNM IT department receive daily reminders from Help Desk to respond to the ticket
-After D total business days with no response, Incident declared:
— SLA Service Owner contacts UNM IT assigned technician/ticket owner and director of assigned UNM IT department for written response
— Report filed with IT SAC
• All responses – ‘Holds,’ ‘Waiting for Response, ‘Fulfilled,’ ‘Closed due to Resolution’ etc., must provide details explaining the status change for the ticket.
• If customer requests a certain priority, initial ticket response must note actual priority designated, and reason for change from customer request
‘A’ ‘B’ ‘C’ and ‘D’ days we would recommend to be some sensible number for responses.
Thank you – Chad
- This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by ccovey01.