Is this an incident?

An open discussion on issues related directly or primarily to the service or help desk.
Post Reply
User avatar
Tiddles
Itiler
Itiler
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:00 pm

Sun Oct 20, 2013 2:34 am

My apologies if this has been dealt with before. I have done some searching but can't find any discussion. Let say I as a customer raise an incident ticket for what I perceive to be a loss of service. Let's say System A does not allow previews of Excel spreadsheet but does allow previews of other Microsoft documents. The customer reports the fact that excel spreadsheets can't be previewed. On the surface it sounds like a bug but on further investigation it is discovered the vendor of System A for whatever reason never included functionality to preview excel spreadsheets. If this is the case then is there not an argument for saying the functionality never existed in the first place and therefore there is no actual loss of service just the perception there is. If this correct then the right course of action would be to close the incident and open up a problem and/or rfc. Or should the incident remain open because any reasonable person would judge this as a bug and therefore the incident should be left open regardless of any subsequent change/problem solving process?
It's amazing how frequent I come across scenarios like this. Recently I had to deal with an issue where a reporting tool which one assumed would report folder permissions actually didn't even though marketing material from the vendor suggested otherwise. When I contacted the vendor they apologised saying it was a mix-up between the marketing and technical areas? Oooops!


User avatar
UKVIKING
ITIL Expert
ITIL Expert
Posts: 3639
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:00 pm
Location: London, UK

Sun Oct 20, 2013 1:52 pm

Well, It is an Incident from the customer point of view

Which is the one view that matters... Initially

If the user is expecting the service to allow Excel files ot be created or extracted and it does not then one of two things occurred

1 - the service defined to the customer included misinformation and must be corrected
2 - the service is not delivering the service as contractually required

the first is to take the incident and send it to the Service Management team - the service delivery / service level mgmt. to investigate WTF is going on

the second is to ... ditto
John Hardesty
ITSM Manager's Certificate (Red Badge)

Change Management is POWER & CONTROL. /....evil laughter
User avatar
Tiddles
Itiler
Itiler
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:00 pm

Sun Oct 20, 2013 3:25 pm

Yes but surely the service definition is never going to be so granular that it defines every bit of functionality that is covered by the service. There is bound to be grey areas.
User avatar
UKVIKING
ITIL Expert
ITIL Expert
Posts: 3639
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:00 pm
Location: London, UK

Mon Oct 21, 2013 3:43 am

Tiddles,

If the service is internally supplied.. I agree.. The service may be delivered a very vague term.

But for external.. as it is a contract, I would expect that level of granularity
John Hardesty
ITSM Manager's Certificate (Red Badge)

Change Management is POWER & CONTROL. /....evil laughter
User avatar
scottatah
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:00 pm

Mon Feb 10, 2014 3:14 pm

We just encountered a similar episode. An addin that exists in local installs of Excel wasn't available in Excel via Citrix. This was created as an incident by the service desk but as tier 2 realized this was not in fact an incident, but a service that never existed, the incident was closed down and a request for the modification submitted.

The incident was handled within the propsed SLA agreements, and the request dealt with appropriately.
Post Reply