How would you deal with an organization that started rejecting the concept of submitting issues as tickets, including the head of IT?
Posted by Physical-Modeler@reddit | sysadmin | View on Reddit | 449 comments
We recently started getting a lot of pushback from team members who simply don't want to write down requests. Not in an email (which becomes a ticket), and certainly not in a web-based ticket submission form. The general consensus from end users is that they want to call or schedule meetings with specific IT team members they previously worked with, to describe their issue face-to-face. IT leadership recently turned over, and no longer enforces the "everything is a ticket" stance, even advising colleagues to message their preferred IT team members directly. This results in people not getting help in a timely manner, no record of what happened, and a lot more stress for IT team members.
Have you ever seen organizations regress like this?
craigontour@reddit
Say you will trial it and then demonstrate how overall productivity drops because most of the scheduled meetings are 2 minute fixes not 15 minutes and you are unable to mange your time effectively.
draconicmonkey@reddit
It honestly depends on the size of the organization and the number of tickets you tend to get. I worked for a few years in an environment where tickets were encouraged but not enforced. But the scale was manageable comparatively to the workforce and we worked as a collaborative team in our respective areas so no one person got the full brunt of it. Generally speaking it wasn’t bad since management left IT alone as long as we did a reasonable job of keeping our customers happy.
But that has its limits in terms of scaling and in larger organizations where demand far exceeds capacity or if you have team members that sandbag it can be a nightmare.
But to directly address the question of how I would deal with it - I’d evaluate the company and see if it is worth hanging around and if so I’d make my concerns known, then wait to see how things played out. It’s possible they try this for a while and then realize it is a grave mistake and roll the change back - it’s also possible that it works better than expected or tweaks are made to make it workable. But either way in companies you want to stay with, it’s often better to run with leadership and influence their decisions in the right direction than to stand directly in the way of those decisions prior to giving them a try if they are dead set on that direction.
VNDMG@reddit
Head of IT can say goodbye to anymore headcount’s if they can’t ever show metrics
itmgr2024@reddit
I have not dealt with completely abandoning tickets. But i have dealt with the easing of the “everything is a ticket.”. The former head of IT was inflexible and rubbed people the wrong way and when he left company leadership instructed me to not push so hard especially with certain people. All i can say is go with the flow, it is a business decision.
BikeVirtual@reddit
every SLA will be missed. half of the issues will go unresolved. there will be no audit trail, which will fuck everything up when you get a compliance or security-related blame game.
Everything needs to be written down and recorded somehow. This is unsustainable.
netcat_999@reddit
The only upside I can think of is now you can say "I never got that request" in answer to the verbal question/request you got from a user in the hallway as you were on your way to the bathroom. If they won't let you document it, show them what happens when nothing is documented.
sheikhyerbouti@reddit
Honestly, I would probably spend a lot of days with my laptop in my hand walking to and from various empty areas of the office to nap in while also appearing busy.
netcat_999@reddit
That's my usual M.O. Looking serious and slightly frazzled goes a long way to keeping the work away.
tdhuck@reddit
This is the answer. I wouldn't push too hard if management didn't want to force a policy since those decisions are up to them.
Don't work more, don't work late, don't have a bad attitude, just work requests as they are made.
Eventually people will have issues, will experience delays and will become annoyed and they can complain to their managers and go from there.
Thoth74@reddit
This coupled with the users wanting 1-on-1 meetings with their "preferred IT team member"?
"Sure...I can schedule a meeting to go over this. My next opening is in mid-2028. How is that for you?"
nv1t@reddit
Or just schedule a meeting and drop everything else. Jump around from problem to problem and forgetting left and right :)
ChaosPerfection@reddit
I did this with my Bookings link, but set the lead time to a week.. 😂
tdhuck@reddit
I would just say 'please check my calendar for availability' and most users don't know how to do that or won't do that. If they give an excuse as to why they can't do that, I would tell them to come back later and I should be available to assist, this also assumes I am busy during their drive by.
CO420Tech@reddit
Here's what I do, even when I'm sitting at my desk and they walk up - "oh, yeah, we can take a look at that! I need just a few minutes to finish up a priority issue here but I'll take a look shortly. Do me a favor and pop in a ticket real quick, so I don't forget?"
Obviously this doesn't work for actual urgent things like "we are having a very important meeting and the conference room equipment isn't working" but it does work for most stuff. The whole team has to be onboard with it though - if you have that one guy who just jumps up immediately to do everything live, then everyone will just go to him and the rest of you will seem lazy.
Tech_Mix_Guru111@reddit
🤣 that works in organizations that promote ticketing, didn’t you read that leadership sides against that lol.
cake-and-fine-wine@reddit
No ticket = no SLA
laserdicks@reddit
That doesn't work. They always (pretend to) believe the most senior member of the conflict.
Hate_Feight@reddit
The other upside is nobody in IT can be put on a pip, can't track what work they've done.
SartenSinAceite@reddit
Not to mention that end users now have to memorize every frickin request as they can't just submit a ticket for someone to check in the future.
entuno@reddit
Yep. IT should forget all the information that they were told, and require the user to re-provide it for each interaction. After all, they can't be reasonably expected to memorise the details of every problem.
When users get fed up repeatedly having to provide the same information over and over again, they might complain enough to get things changed.
Proof-Variation7005@reddit
We call that move "Every Doctor's office"
mineral_minion@reddit
"I just filled out a form with this info, I even filled it out online so it is stored digitally, why do I have to answer the same questions again?" I asked a handful of Dr/RN/PAs about it. The answer was unanimous, most people do a really bad job filling out their forms and give better answers when you ask them in person. People leave out life-threatening allergies and serious chronic conditions just to save a few seconds filling out the forms. The most recent time I asked about it, the RN told me I was the first person that day with answers consistent with my form (at 4pm!).
"People, what a bunch of bastards!" - Roy Trenneman
Apart-Accountant-992@reddit
"Humans are fucking stupid." -- Murderbot
WendoNZ@reddit
The books, not the god awful TV show. Why to people making TV shows consistently take good books, fuck up the story and characters and then act surprised when it's a flop?!
Jaereth@reddit
Every election cycle, more and more humans had been killed off. Unsurprisingly, the Deathbot political party slowly gained ground until our entire government was composed of them.
RaNdomMSPPro@reddit
I had to tell the doctors and nurses the same story every shift change. It got exhausting. To the point I started writing on the whiteboard in my mom’s room. After two days, they erased my notes that I was leaving for them.
metalnuke@reddit
I guess "leg disabled" is too much to write for some folks?
..and wtf, that's Roy's last name? TIL
mineral_minion@reddit
I looked it up to make sure I had the quote right, wasn't even sure the character had a last name.
Brawldud@reddit
Well like, yes, but, why do I need to talk about my peanut allergy when I'm just here to get an STD panel?
psiphre@reddit
in case the swab they're about to punch your bore with is made out of recycled peanut shells
Technical_Inaji@reddit
Bastard coated bastards, with bastard filling.
fresh-dork@reddit
so...
ask them to read the answers you provided and ask followup questions. or just tell them that you'll start doing a terrible job since nobody reads them anyway
SartenSinAceite@reddit
funny. If anything, the usual case for lying on forms I've seen is to GET in. Exagerating symptoms and the like
krazykat357@reddit
As someone's who's worked clinic receptions and admin, they do both. They'll lie with a list of the exact symptoms listed on a specialist's sheet, and then when they get into the appointment, they'll lie to get a specific medication or procedure, all the while ruining their outcome chances.
Nik_Tesla@reddit
Ucgh, I recently had to go to Urgent Care, and I had to describe how I injured my back no fewer than 9 times while I was there. I swear at least 2 of the times they took notes as I told them.
smohk1@reddit
or Comcast support
chemcast9801@reddit
Or Microsoft support
SesameStreetFighter@reddit
No chain of custody for permissions approvals. No tracking. No history. No knowledge base. No metrics for time/tickets closed for the execs.
Oh, you have a new user who already started, but told someone verbally? Huh. Funny they didn't get into the system. I'll see if I can remember that by the time I walk back to my desk.
Elevated_Misanthropy@reddit
This is the way. New Hires are so notoriously started before they're onboarded at my org that one of our KPIs are time from ticket creation to account creation.
No ticket = no account = new user getting paid to play Candy Crush for at least a full day.
cbass377@reddit
Every time is the first time. Like Groundhog day.
"Really, we talked about this? I don't remember. Oh well, I talk to so many people every day."
gruntled_n_consolate@reddit
Roleplay chatgpt. Diabolical. You're not just malicious compliance, you're the bastard operator from hell.
smokinbbq@reddit
Ok, so we've been working on this ticket for 2 weeks now, but I can't remember the details, so we're going to need to start at Step 1. Can you please power off your computer fully, wait 30 seconds, then power it on again, then we'll try to get you logged into ..."
Do that for every call that comes in.
Centimane@reddit
It sounds like users still can submit tickets. They just choose not to.
GLotsapot@reddit
"sorry, I don't remember that conversation, but that's understandable since I get some many a day. What was your issue again?" And never admit that you remember the request.
Jaereth@reddit
I always just did it truthfully. No need to lie.
"Actually Bob, when you told me that, I was already on my way to the HR department to look at an urgent and business critical printer issue, and then after that we had a meeting with our SIEM company, by that time it was after lunch so I grabbed a sandwich and returned to my desk to see someone opened a ticket (i'd always throw this part in as a little dig to show them what would happen had they done that) about a team not being able to access the file server so 2 of us started looking at that.
That lasted till end of day and I went home. I'm sorry when I came back the next day I forgot you had stopped me in the hallway to ask about something...
uxixu@reddit
And on the other end, that they could miss seeing reports from multiple people separately instead of seeing there's a common/repeat issue... wasting time and efficiency of both users and IT staff fixing symptoms instead of root causes.
In a word: chaos.
trippedonatater@reddit
More generally, metrics are now meaningless. Only do stuff for important people or your buddies. Nothing else matters anymore unless it's escalated.
redditnamehere@reddit
My favorite response to my micro managing director. She’d sometimes ask me about an issue from three days ago while I led an Ops team. I was doing a ton of work so something may be missed from time to time.
Without even viewing the entire question, I’d ask where the ticket is to review so I can let her know the status.
mailboy79@reddit
"no ticket, no work" is a common sense policy that ensures that issues get managed and recorded in an appropriate manner. It is also a metric that allows you to project value toward the organization you work for.
I'd insist on a ticket arrangement, especially if you ever want to see a raise in pay in your career, OP.
The statements others have made about "willfully irresponsible behavior" are equally valid.
GildedfryingPan@reddit
This all sounds dumb as hell and will end in disaster.
TeflonJon__@reddit
Thanks for being the second comment, I was about to type the same damn thing but then figured I should check first
jimicus@reddit
If OP is lucky, his manager will see sense after a particularly difficult meeting in which he can't explain what his staff are doing and he can't explain why other departments are blaming IT for "not solving their problems".
If OP is very lucky, he won't be subsequently pushed under the bus.
But I'm not terribly optimistic. Any IT manager making a demand like that is.... well, I'm not sure there's a word that conveys how mind-bogglingly irresponsible they are.
GildedfryingPan@reddit
Very true. I didn't want to be "that guy", but I would personally gtfo.
Either that manager has no business managing IT or there's some corporate play taking place.
QuietGoliath@reddit
Sadly, the number of "IT Managers" who have absolutely ZERO IT skills or experience is shockingly high.
Jaereth@reddit
I knew a guy who was coming out of the Marine Corps and I asked what you gonna do now he said "I think i'm gonna get into IT Management"
I told him I think you should keep considering other options lol.
Finagles_Law@reddit
What, why! The managers themselves have it good and he might turn put to be a good one!
MyClevrUsername@reddit
I’m struggling to imagine what kind of experience this manager does have if they feel like this is a good workable solution.
QuietGoliath@reddit
Probably something involving words like "bonding", "collaboration", "group-centric-productivity-enhancement" or similar such trite.
Strict-Astronaut2245@reddit
And they are the best managers if you can somehow stay employees in their shitshow. They have no idea what you are doing but swear you are busy.
battmain@reddit
Even two lines of certifications in their email signature, and still didn't know shit. I was the final nail on one's coffin when the hire probation ended.
Jaereth@reddit
Trust me I have experience in this. All these big plans and all is well and good until they need to get buy in on anything or has to interact with any other member of leadership. Then it's "Oh yes whatever you say sir! Tickets? Oh no we will never make anyone again don't worry!"
cpz_77@reddit
This is something I’m dealing with right now. It seems like we’re all on the same page when we discuss things internally in IT…but when it comes to discussion with other departments, when other leadership makes demands, it’s “yes” to everything, even if it directly contradicts what we had just talked about within the department. So frustrating. Basically just tells everyone what they want to hear…I guess to try and keep everyone happy…I get that a fairly new director doesn’t want to ruffle feathers but at the same time you aren’t doing your department any favors if you don’t stand behind its policies to other department leaders.
So we still have the same problems we’ve always had - we continue to not be looped in until the last minute (when they need something from us), every request we get is urgent, and Devs can run rampant and do what they want (deploying third party software to prod boxes with no IT involvement, getting into network devices they shouldn’t be in, trying to play DBA in our prod databases, etc.) because their VP lets them slide and we don’t have anyone who will stand up and explain to the VP why this stuff shouldn’t be allowed.
jimicus@reddit
Exactly.
This is such a basic thing that any IT manager who who thinks it isn't is immediately suspect.
What else are they going to screw up? Because I absolutely guarantee you it doesn't end here. This manager is going to make mistake after mistake and it cannot possibly end well.
notHooptieJ@reddit
dont dive on that, ive had a few decent managers in my years, and i can actually see my manager agreeing enthusiastically to the demands specifically as a form of malicious compliance.
you may not be in his trust circle to let you know its malicious, so he justs tell you to "comply with it ok?"
jimicus@reddit
You’re suggesting the manager is playing 4D chess and has already planned his next move?
I have to concede there’s an outside chance you’re correct. Sooner or later people are going to complain that issues aren’t being resolved, and he can say “well, without ticket numbers, how are we to know that they were raised in the first place?”.
But without at least a brief meeting in which he confides in his team that he knows what he’s doing, it’s hard to see that.
Sea-Marionberry100@reddit
Not to mention...how to justify budget for IT
Jaereth@reddit
heh, funny thing about that.
We are strict with our ticketing system.
One time an engineer tried to blame their low output on PC problems. Claiming they get no help from IT.
HR asked for the helpdesk logs and he hadn't opened a ticket in over a year.
BUH BYE!
tdhuck@reddit
Managers and upper management fall into the 'dumb' category, so I'm not surprised at all.
throwaway0000012132@reddit
No and honestly, sounds like a total crap show.
Run.
CharcoalGreyWolf@reddit
If there’s no tracking, the team members can claim you did nothing for them, didn’t fix their problems, etc etc. They can change from one issue to another and say they’re the same thing. And so on.
Tickets are good for you and for them. They need to happen, not optional.
CratesManager@reddit
Although it has to be noted this does not mean the users have to create the ticket. I absolutely understand why a user may prefer to call a competent person and maybe get an instant resolution or at least most relevant questions asked and answered right away.
Just from the post i wouldn't say it's a terrible idea, i would say it's an expensive idea. I would be fully on board with that while outlining how much additional support staff it requires.
SartenSinAceite@reddit
You only do a call if it's something like the server is being on fire.
Most situations do not have a "I NEED SOMEONE RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW" level of urgency. Even if they do, many of them require plenty of work, so you're not going to get an immediate resolution.
And then there's, if everyone's doing "urgent" tasks, how can someone call for help on an actual urgent task?
CratesManager@reddit
True but just because you have someone on the phone doesn't mean you need to resolve their issue immediately. You can create the ticket and if it's a small thing or urgent and you have time, resolve it. Otherwise call them back.
If course this introduces a lot of inefficiency because you have to interrupt what you are doing, i am not advocating for it. But it can also removes some inefficiency (mostly back and forth) and can feel great for the users.
You need to plan your day. For every stretch of the day, someone is on duty and that is the guy(s) that pick(s) up the phone and calls people back. Everyone who is not on duty can work on their tasks and focus. The guy on duty can use downtime for stuff that doesn't require focus.
That is what makes it expensive, of course running and improving the environment still needs to happen so you need more staff and it scales in a TERRIBLE way. For a small environment with two admins it can actually be great, for bigger environments where not everyone will know everything and the overall volume is way larger it's usually a terrible idea. In any xase the ticket still needs to be created, you definitely need that for documentation and priorization.
VernapatorCur@reddit
Your first paragraph just described the job of a tier 1 tech, and the exact reason you DON'T let users directly contact higher level techs. That's what the help desk they're refusing to use is for.
CratesManager@reddit
The post does not describe the organization having a help desk unless i missed it.
VernapatorCur@reddit
The post doesn't, but OP's other comments here do. They have a main help desk line to call into, and are refusing to do that, instead calling escalation techs and the DB administrator for every issue.
AmusingVegetable@reddit
Context switching is a major burnout cause. Let them open the freaking ticket while I’m busy solving another ticket, and it will be triaged immediately after I finish the current one.
RubberBootsInMotion@reddit
This is the biggest issue imo. Switching from one thing to another every few minutes is the path to chaos and insanity.
Inversely, when there is a slow time and a Super-Duper-Important-Senior-Vice-Director-of-Everything sees a mere IT slave not on the phone for 5 minutes there's no way to "prove" that valuable work is/has/will get done.
All around a terrible idea.
Squossifrage@reddit
Level 5 "URGENT" tickets are usually a sign that the user submitted them and then immediately left for a two week vacation with no cell phone.
Jaereth@reddit
We built in a countdown on ours that if the status went back to waiting for the user on an emergency ticket and they didn't respond in 24 hours the system just closed it :D
Set to a week for normal priority tickets.
AmusingVegetable@reddit
When everything is urgent, nothing is urgent.
Not_your_guy_buddy42@reddit
While OPs org is gone nuts, your point is exactly right, It isn't like it can't be white gloved, and with enough money it will be. Had a damn cushy job when you'd drop by a user's office, be offered a cuppa, maybe a scotch, take care of or discuss whatever it is, back at your desk you'd take the time to update the ticket. The service desk also was trained to produce (actually detailed) tickets from calls and drop-ins. A goddamn paradise I tell you.
Kir-chan@reddit
Isn't that what the first level are for? I run a small team of remote techs and we solve about half the incoming calls (and actual tickets from people who prefer writing to calling).
WolfOfAsgaard@reddit
In my experience it is a terrible idea. It shouldn't be the users' decision how the department is run.
It doesn't matter to them if a business critical system is down so long as it doesn't affect them.
They don't care their coworker has been waiting for support longer than them.
All they care about is time to resolution for their issue.
CratesManager@reddit
It is an inefficient and expensive idea which usually translates to terrible, but sometimes translates to great service.
Absolutely agree
Also fully agree, but imo not that relevant for the initial point of contact (more so for priorization and complaint mamagement)
Worth_Efficiency_380@reddit
That is why you do not answer. I have every person outside of IT direct to voicemail, I do not answer outside of IT teams calls. I do not give out my number. If they ask you something say where is the ticket. You gotta train them. I told one office I'm not installing software until you submit a ticket. took 2 weeks then they caved.
jimicus@reddit
And when there's no evidence, they can say to their manager "sorry I sat on my arse all day, it's IT's fault".
I'm absolutely astonished that any IT manager with two brain cells to rub together would agree to NOT having tickets. Setting up a ticketing system, sure. Reviewing it because it isn't working; yep, agreed. Simply not doing it?! Are you completely insane?
Jaereth@reddit
Could just be a coward. OP said management turned over so new guy is in and doesn't want to ruffle any feathers and keep his sweet new gig.
Guy who just interviewed and hired him comes to him about "Can we just get rid of tickets?"
If dude caves like this buckle up, because once the managers smell a cowardly IT manager that will give them what they want like this it's like blood in the water and they will all attack.
jimicus@reddit
Regardless of the underlying motivation, I think we can all agree that this won't end well, and anyone who's prepared to enable it is not someone you'd want to work under.
Jaereth@reddit
agreed.
Bladelink@reddit
The counterplay to that though is to just say that the end user never even notified you of their problem.
wezu123@reddit
That's true, I'm basically a solo guy so no ticketing system. There are tasks/issues that arise once a year or so, and after all that time I don't remember how I solved it, so I need to spend a lot of time and frustration to do it again. Massive waste of time and effort.
Jaereth@reddit
You need a ticketing system more than anyone for like you said, looking back at past issues. But also to triage and CYA to prove a workload.
wild_eep@reddit
It's a choice, I guess.
Ask them what they envision the natural consequences of that choice will be.
I_cut_the_brakes@reddit
I'd quit. Full stop, fuck that.
IndependentDingo4591@reddit
My organization does help desk ticketing via email to the specific email. After the first automated "your request has been received", the next automated response offers time to meet. I think they use Bookings. But you can select the IT person if you have a preference. That seems like it could help you guys, unless you're already doing it that way.
Not a sysadmin pro, just a guy who likes IT
OldGirlGeek@reddit
"The general consensus from end users is that they want to call or schedule meetings with specific IT team members they previously worked with, to describe their issue face-to-face. IT leadership recently turned over, and no longer enforces the "everything is a ticket" stance, even advising colleagues to message their preferred IT team members directly. "
This sounds....brutal. In my organization we have a couple of techs that people can't stand dealing with. The rest of us already have an imbalance of work because of this. We do have a ticket system, but there's also the reward for doing good work is more work going on here. If people could just reach out to their "preferred" IT person, a couple of us would drown and the rest of them would have even more time to play Freecell and yap about their 3D printers.
v5forlife@reddit
Open tickets for users on their behalf to track these requests after the call/face to face and drive your communication thereafter through the ticket?
1a2b3c4d_1a2b3c4d@reddit
Yes, in a company that was shrinking and on the verge of collapse. Time to update your resume and start looking. In the mean time, you also put a 3-month and 6 month plan to get some new skills, new skills that are in demand.
Carpe Diem.
Beach_Bum_273@reddit
That's gonna create a huge problem when it comes to proof of work when someone asks IT team members what they do all day
InterDave@reddit
This is an absolutely horrible idea from a business management perspective on so many levels.
I spent years trying to get users to at least contact the help desk directly... email, phone, even walk up - and to STOP calling their favorites directly. Some of them would get absolutely PISSED when they would leave a voicemail asking for help from a specific individual - who was on vacation, or a PT worker and not in for the next three days.
shadovvvvalker@reddit
One of the most important things you can do in any IT department.
Find the agent/analyst/developer who is the bottleneck for most things. Unplug their phone. Set up an inbox rule that puts all new email chains that don't include their manager in a folder labeled 'not important'.
The purpose of a manager is to get work done through their staff. If outside sources are dictating work to the staff, the manager has no control of the work done.
SilkBC_12345@reddit
Ah yes, this is like in that book "The Phoenix Project". If you haven't read it, it is a great read (fictionalized) about going through this exact thing, and there was o e person who was a bottleneck where they pretty much did that same thing.
shadovvvvalker@reddit
Yep. Fantastic book. It and "the goal" which it is based off. Single handedlyodt impactful book I've read.
rollingviolation@reddit
are you me?
I've had people do the following:
Day 1: Call a tech directly and leave a message that their printer is broken.
Day 2: Repeat message.
Day 4: Their manager is calling and leaving a message that the printer is broken.
Day 6: Their manager is calling the tech's manager to find out why no one is fixing the printer.
The tech: ON VACATION.
These are why we have a help desk, tickets, and escalation procedures, so that people can have coverage for vacations.
InterDave@reddit
Yes.
I've had people absolutely livid that Ronnie didn't show up to set up the presentation/video conference. Turns out they left him a message the first day of his vacation, and the event was on the 4th day of his vacation, and they NEVER bothered to reach out to the help desk by any other means.
This type of thing literally happens 2-3 times per year.
I even tried really really hard to get them to CC the main help email, if they were going to insist on reaching out to their favorites.
boli99@reddit
and thats why voicemails should be turned off. simple recorded message "sorry i cannot take your call right now, please email helpdesk@whatever" - and then hangup. no recordings.
ImportantDrop9952@reddit
I’d peace out of that place asap. If IT management is that stupid, it’s all going to go downhill fast.
Mariale_Pulseway@reddit
oh nonono
and the for the one who said to say "I never got that request" I agree. at some point they'll have to realize their method is not sustainable (or at least I hope they do)
No-Butterscotch-8510@reddit
Well if the leadership doesn’t support the ticket system you’re doomed.
Unless…. Play along. Schedule out time for every single thing you need to do in anticipation of needing to do it. When appointments are made make sure it’s for a full hour to make sure you have time to complete it during that appointment. Schedule all your lunches. Sorry that time is for this process. Sorry I’m booked for that hour (don’t mention it’s your lunch hour). Make your schedule as full as possible. Maybe that will show them lol.
LRS_David@reddit
Always.
Users want symptoms removed. Not problems fixed. And as quickly as possible. So just show up, make the symptom disappear, then let them get back to work. None of this ticketing nonsense that takes them from their real job.
[sarcasm off]
Radiant_Fondant_4097@reddit
Sounds like an awesome system; I forget what video or song I want to listen to next when I stop thinking about it for 5 seconds, so no recorded work no problems!
reni-chan@reddit
I used to be a student at a company that was like this when I started and by the end of the year everyone knew they won't get me to do anything unless they submit a ticket. Every phone call I received or every time someone stopped me in a corridor I would respond with "what's the ticket number, I will look it up. Don't have one, sure submit it and I will have a look".
Yes I was an asshole about it but they eventually learnt, including senior management.
Fabulous-Farmer7474@reddit
If you buckle once they will never use the ticketing system. Long ago when I did help desk work I would take my lunch outside of the building because if I ate in one of the cafeterias people would interrupt me with questions.
Jaereth@reddit
idk how I would respond if someone asked me this while I was clearly eating lunch but it wouldn't be good...
Obvious-Jacket-3770@reddit
I legit said to someone "you can pay me X for the food I am wasting." To which they flipped and went to my boss, didn't tell them the context and just said I required them to pay me. When I explained it, he sent a large email to the company that if we are not submitting tickets, we have no expectations to help, that includes execs.
SVP tried to walk up to me and ask for help in the bathroom after that and I stuck to my guns, CTO backed me.
Charlie_Mouse@reddit
That was me too - first job was at a place with a great subsidised canteen but after I was all keen and helpful once people kept on coming up to me whilst I was eating. On a couple of occasions I even had a small queue.
It played havoc with my digestion. Even when there wasn’t someone asking me something I was always on edge anticipating someone coming over. People have told me “hey, you should just say ‘please get in touch with me after lunch, I’m eating right now’” - and I did try that - but that’s still kinda stressful and half the time turns into the person running a variation on “oh no, this is just a quick question ….” and of course it pretty much never was.
Even apart from the indigestion from bolting my lunch as quickly as possible I was getting worried I was going to blow my top at someone with a “quick question” in the most public and career limiting way possible … so instead became part of the sandwich in a hidden corner fraternity for the next 20+ years.
Fabulous-Farmer7474@reddit
Yea I can see stress creeping in as it did with me. I found a coffee shop across the street which was next to some restaurants that I could escape to. For whatever reason, not many from the company came over or if they did they didn't see me.
Ultimately I left the help desk scene as it was getting to be insane in terms of responsibilities. They wanted us to write code, create reports, write documentation and handle tickets. I almost quit on the stop one day but the job, basically a transfer in the same large company, I had been seeking gave me an offer so it thrilled me to turn in my resignation.
My boss was still like "we might want to call you for some of the more complex things you worked on". I flatly refused and told him under no circumstances would I accept that. He didn't like it but seem to accept it.
I moved onto a more focused role which was good but the more technologically illiterate in my group would always bug me with questions as they knew I used to work in IT support. I got my new boss to issue a statement that I wasn't there for that - he agreed and people backed off. They thought I was gonna be their personal support person.
Obvious-Jacket-3770@reddit
Your leadership has never worked in IT I take it.
Brush that resume up and run the fuck away. While doing that, "forget" to help people routinely and when you are asked why, tell them "I have multiple issues and there's no tickets so I forgot". Ensure that the no ticket thing is in writing.
chillbynature80@reddit
I seriously have time question the leadership at this point. If you have a small environment, fine but that is not sustainable in any business of size.
Tickets provide:
Documentation Accountability Consolidation
Expect high turnover in your department.
Tech_Mix_Guru111@reddit
Man I bet being personable, well liked, and spending time at the water cooler and other high traffic avenues is the EXACT thing that gets one promoted in that organization. I’d also be willing to bet more women in leadership have trickled in too. The more conversations the more people will be forced to acknowledge the strides those have made to get where they are today.
laserdicks@reddit
Update the resume.
bitslammer@reddit
This simply isn't scalable. What happens when 1 person is getting 80% of all the requests? How are you going to allow junior staff to learn if they never get called?
dark_gear@reddit
Not only that, but how are you supposed to track patterns in issues or create KBs if you never document?
The only way this could work is with a hybrid model where the IT department creates the ticket when they get a call, and doesn't start working until they have documented the issue and identified the user. If users won't submit tickets themselves then IT has to do it because you still need to document the work.
Shazam1269@reddit
This was my first thought. They need to always create the ticket, while being so thorough that it becomes faster if the user submits the ticket. And then knock out user submitted tickets at blinding speed.
shadovvvvalker@reddit
The correct response is not to abandon "everything is a ticket."
Agents should still be making tickets. You call me? ticket. meeting? ticket. walkup? ticket.
Now that everything is a ticket you can enact "skill-based routing".
Doug can't be expected to do EVERYTHING and know EVERYTHING. So you have different people handle different ticket types.
"Sorry, i can't fix this issue, i will have to forward you to X."
Then you balance on the fly based on load. You have cross-training, so you can adjust as needed.
Liquidretro@reddit
When the forward happens the user will need to start over again because there is no paper trail to review.
A internal unwritten rules is half of all incidents get passed for the sole purpose of frustrating users. Eventually things fall apart, a few techs get overworked and leave and then the idea of falling back to a que or ticketing system to organize and manages becomes feasible again......
shadovvvvalker@reddit
You missed the part where I said the agents make a ticket.
There is a paper trail.
If a company isnt small enough that the IT department could kill them all in one hours work, they can take away the paper trail from the. Old dead hands of IT.
Dsavant@reddit
It also encourages shittier work. If people don't like working with you, they're going to go to your colleagues, and then that's less work for you to do at the same pay
timpkmn89@reddit
In a theoretical ideal world it'd be self-balancing -- users would realize they can get "priority" by contacting non-busy users.
Mr_ToDo@reddit
I think in reality it would get worse by users doing multiple submissions to get an issue resolved. How are they to know who's busy or not other then to call and submit the issue to each of them.
zoeymeanslife@reddit
Yep this. The more personable or competent people will get overworked and burned out while the worst staff will have easy days because no one wants to work with them.
Ask me how I know this.
ChamZod@reddit
How does anyone ever get sick? How does anyone ever take a vacation? Not just scalable, but not sustainable. Every tech is going to be an island of documentation, you will be much worse at replacing each individual, who now must know EVERYTHING the departing tech knew.
bitslammer@reddit
Great points. Talk about silos...
The documentation thing is an even wider issue if one person gets so swamped they never have time to document.
ChamZod@reddit
Not just that; but it’s just a bad idea overall to give personal ownership of issues directly to your high level techs, even if they are realistically going to be who works on it. It becomes, oh, Jenny is gone, the issue is now unsolvable. Every time we had an issue with X we go to Jenny and she solves it. The hard work just stays with whoever solved it last time.
Not to mention this entire premise is just, we make all the level two and three techs do level one stuff. Make a ticket for them and fill out all the details for them is a great way to waste the very expensive time of your most knowledgeable workers.
Thoth74@reddit
Years ago our helpdesk person had such a shit attitude that people would call the admins directly so as to bypass her. It got to the point where nearly every call I got was either an external sales cold call or a user needing some basic as shit problem resolved. It's why to this day I just flat out don't answer my phone anymore. If it's an important call they'll leave a message which will get emailed to me.
HeKis4@reddit
This a million times. Do you want to pay me to diagnose performance issues for your query or do you want me to edit the ticket because an oracle DBA ticket was filed as a windows server issue ?
Bladelink@reddit
Lol siloing taken to its logical extreme: every individual is a perfect silo.
Antique_Grapefruit_5@reddit
Agreed. Everyone needs to either call your help desk or open a ticket. Reaching out directly to resources will result in issues being lost.
entuno@reddit
TBH, if users are complaining about how long it takes to get a response, and they half the IT team are sitting around with no requests then that might wake up the managers that this is a bad system.
Penners99@reddit
No tickets means there are no SLA targets to be met.
walkasme@reddit
why can't the team member log the ticket, add to notes, logged by IT per direct contact.
Then you can report against this and advise management that IT team member's are call centre agents. Cost it vs call centre agent. Spent 20 hours/month as call centre agent at IT rate cost the business so much more. Ask for more "call centre agents" and see things change or suffer.
I also have said, I can meet in 3 or 5 days for a scheduled meeting or another person can help you today. Especially when a specific person is popular. Also pull that is not my area of speciality.
Another means of frustration is to do shadowing, I need person X to shadow me to see how this done when I am off or unavailable and take twice as long.
i.e. do things but slow things down a bit.
Recommend user gets training if they have common issues as you perceive them to need assistance often. Sometimes users dont want to be "tracked", self document or just log for them anyway.
tjlightbulb@reddit
How do you track KPI??
dghkklihcb@reddit
Just keep the client in line while you slowly write the ticket yourself asking all the necessary questions again and wasting everybodys time.
Each email on a personal address should include "Please write a ticket so colleagues can work on it when I'm away."
Do this for a few months and most clients will directly use the ticket system.
Barbarian_818@reddit
I would have hated it. "cleared tickets" was always one of the main metrics my supervisors measured.
Going down the hall or over to the satellite office to see Agnes in accounting (and wait while she gets off the phone, or back from lunch) would be very wasteful of my time. And, just because I have a pleasant manner and solved her email issue, that doesn't mean I am the best choice to fix her Blackberry sync issue. Submitting a ticket and having the I.T. supervisor assign the right person to the job just makes sense.
That ticket system is also the primary spot to record my work notes. If Agnes has a recurring problem, the old notes is my first place to look. If I get hit by a bus, that documentation is going to make life so much easier for my replacement.
Those tickets also cover my ass. I have had users who will have the same problem come up weeks later and claim it is because I didn't fix it. And we've all had the problem of a user who thinks a new problem was caused by us fixing something else. "every since Tim installed my new monitor, I haven't been able to check my email. I think he must have done something to it"
Being able to buttonhole me in the hallway feels more human than a ticket system. So i can see why it makes the end users happier. But the ticket system evolved because it solves problems. We use it because it prevents problems.
DigThin4179@reddit
If it's not in a ticket it didn't happen.
mad-ghost1@reddit
Since everyone can just call their favourite person and schedule a meeting…. Do they also bring cake or food of appreciation? the top performing people will get swamped with meetings
Virtual_Search3467@reddit
Then the solution is simple: You don’t deal with their problems at all.
What do you mean I told you I need this fixed asap? I don’t know what you’re talking about. See, there’s so much stuff going on right now, I really can’t remember any minutiae about some alleged meeting with you when I never left my desk in the first place and I was plenty busy all day.
I do agree tickets don’t mean it’ll automatically all work to everyone’s satisfaction. Boy do I know it doesn’t.
But if ticketing doesn’t work, you fix it. You don’t just get rid of it entirely.
Dunno what life is like at your place, if you can passive aggressively resist then do that, if you can convince the right people someone’s being an idiot, do that.
But if you feel like you can’t get this reversed in some way… get out of there.
ken_jammin@reddit
My team has the opposite problem. Management and even support staff want things organized via tickets, yet support staff prioritizes direct messages, ignoring tickets.
My team is afraid if ticket tracking is accurate I’ll find out how little work they actually do. I really don’t care as long as people are being assisted in a timely fashion, a quiet day in IT is a successful day in IT and is usually the result of good work. I’m not looking to punish my team because everyone’s been assisted…
1985_McFly@reddit
Isn’t it obvious? Do whatever you can to ensure you’re no one’s favorite IT guy, then sit back, relax, and watch as others in the department wind up with workloads far heavier than you. They’ll start complaining and you can then tell management this is exactly why you pushed for a ticketing system in the first place.
imest58@reddit
This is common with entitled employees, executives. IT is a thankless job and people not from IT see IT as the special person in the family that is autistic, (insert whatever mental issue), and the IT employee is lucky to have a job, regardless of title. I am a director in IT with electrical engineering degree. I am still treated this way. I really wish I would have gone into medicine instead of listening to the people who said “if you find something you love to do, you will never work another day”. To those people I say fuck you, get a degree that pays money so you can retire early and do something other than being under someone’s whim.
GeriatricTech@reddit
The ticket system needs to disappear forever
livelearnleave@reddit
Well, if they're telling people to contact "their preferred IT team member" directly... then make sure you don't become their preferred go-to. If there aren't tickets, then there really can't be any valid assessment on your work performance.
So put in the minimum effort to look into someone's issue. Ask them to reiterate the problems they're experiencing. Then take your time checking things out. Then perhaps decide you need to go check some reference/manufacturers materials for more information and tell them you'll have to get back to them. Whoops, sorry, meant to come back after I had looked into this, but unfortunately since there isn't a ticket system anymore to act as a reminder, and so many people have issues, it becomes difficult to keep everything on track and remember it all, but let me try to work you into my schedule....
AcanthisittaHuge8579@reddit
Somewhat. This contract, they use or our org mailbox to request help. Everybody on my office has access to it but they never use it nor respond to it since it’s not directed towards them verbatim. I actually want our office to use a ticketing system to help me since I’m their only I.T. guy. But they don’t care nor want to spend their budget on it since it would only be me utilizing it. I’m in an office of 7 people. 4 military soldiers. 1 government worker. 2 contractors. So what I do on purpose is I’ll make the users emailing the org mailbox, wait for a few hours before I respond, even tho I see their emails the min it arrives 🗣️😂. Gotta let these users know that just because they email for help doesn’t mean there’s not other users that requested before them.
TwoDeuces@reddit
That's honestly absurd. There isn't an industry framework involving IT Support, Service Management, Operations, etc etc that doesn't start and end with ticketing.
If what you say is true, I'd leave. You will be miserable, you're manager won't be able to justify raises and promotions, your team will be blamed for reduced (perceived and actual) service levels, and you won't learn anything that can help you get a better job elsewhere.
That "IT Manager" is terrible.
westyx@reddit
That is not happy-fun-times, and the future is bleak there.
You could start prioritising tickets over other requests if you wanted to try and retain some sort of sanity.
I_ride_ostriches@reddit
How big is the organization?
Sgt-Tau@reddit
I abhor tickets, but only when they're used as the only metric for job performance. Not having a ticketing system might work if it were a one-man shop, but not ideal for running a team.
waywardworker@reddit
If the ticket system isn't working for your users then you need to step back and figure out why. The job is to support the users/company.
Which isn't to say stop using tickets. Management should start a process of gathering feedback about why people are pushing back and figure out how to address that. Typically the problem is a lack of visibility, users feel ignored. Having an alternative path in for complex work, like a meeting which then results in the support group creating several tickets is also reasonable.
In practice all organizations I've worked in and with had both official and unofficial channels. I would sometimes raise tickets and then ping the person I wanted to handle it for me, for more basic work I didn't care who handled it so wouldn't bother. People would approach me directly about work, I would scope it and include them on the tickets I raised. I would raise tickets with some external groups and then almost immediately telephone them to ensure they were acting on it, and then call them if I didn't get routine updates. Other external groups responded quickly to the ticket and kept it updated so I didn't need to bother them.
If you want users to use tickets then you need to ensure that they are happy doing so. Them not wanting to indicates a failure in the system, especially them wanting to move away from it.
Known_Experience_794@reddit
I can’t even get the other half of the IT department to document stuff, especially in a ticket. Didn’t used to be a problem and tbh, not one person in the company will even send emails to our support email box. Now, everyone from the bottom to the top insists on either sending a Teams message or a text directly to whatever ever tech they want to talk to. This in turn ties up the entire IT staff and paralyzes us from doing any project work. It’s literally impossible to try to start an in-depth project without 15 interruptions before you even get started. And the CEO is the worst one about it so, clearly it’s not going to change.
End Rant
Geminii27@reddit
Embrace it and make it cost them so much more. They want to be able to book times with specific IT employees, or message them directly? IT staffing budget just tripled, and resolution times (time is money) blew out because they wanted to delay until they could speak to someone face to face.
Start by looking at what an MSP would charge for some of those demands. Maybe implement chargeback (actual or virtual) for incidents, with F2F in-person rates (not to mention times) being higher than someone reading a properly-lodged ticket. Have all tickets calculate and prominently show their initial-contact-to-resolution times, for when someone inevitably complains that IT 'takes too long' under the new policy. Well, submitted issues using the old method haven't changed average resolution times, but the new policies that people demanded are less efficient and take up more employee-hours by their very nature, and here are the supporting stats.
Perfectly happy to do things the way you want, boss. It's your budget and timeframes.
monkeydanceparty@reddit
Just write all the requests on post-it’s. Then handle whatever requests you enjoy first. If anyone asks where they are in the queue, point to the post-it’s.
FastRedPonyCar@reddit
Depends on what they’re paying me. Everyone’s got their price to put up with sloppy IT practices.
quiet0n3@reddit
Sure, I would go along with this. Everyone gets a 30min meeting, if I can't solve it during the meeting they will need to book another.
I can't keep a track of what I have and haven't done.
I have no idea where long running tasks are at.
Basically malicious compliance.
k12pcb@reddit
If that is what leaderships want that’s fine, have technicians type the ticket during the call and set it up as if the user sent it.
Everyone wins
FullMetalBunny@reddit
I always avoided internal IT. I'm a systems man, with thousands of servers around the world is much easier then humans and their petty bullshit.
There is nothing like the head of marketing who let's her toddler TEETH on the company phone like it's a damn crew toy. I always tried to get forced bulky cases on all company phones. 1) it protects the phone 2) For some reason they hate cases and just exist the company to pay for it, being reminded of that upsets.
sliverednuts@reddit
Just don’t help them!!!
takeoutthedamntrash@reddit
Don't fucking accept it. I work in one like this right now and hate this approach. Your people and your department will get burned, trust me on that.
SnooLobsters3497@reddit
My guess is that IT leadership must really want to be promoted to VP of IT and sees this as going along to get along.
I suggest that you advertise your position as we work tickets first and everything that was verbally given second. And the verbal requests reset at the end of each day because they aren’t written down. And have you seen our workload, we have several days to a week of backlog.
Sh1rvallah@reddit
Be on the first fucking boat out of that place
OkMulberry5012@reddit
Tickets are a big part of how many companies measure productivity within their technology support division. Has leadership addressed how they intend to gauge performance reviews if there are no tickets to demonstrate competency or work ethic?
KindlyGetMeGiftCards@reddit
Sounds like there is no clear message of what is correct behaviour and expected work ethic, sounds like lack of leadership to me. My opinion is this company is going down the toilet, the toxic people will love it, the good people will leave, things will fall apart, I suggest you prepare 3 envelopes and move on to another job.
To answer your question, yes I have seen something similar across a company but not as bad as you described, the company did fold because the good people left and the newly installed leader dropped a massive turd, took their golden parachute and left. It was sad to see, lots of good people were affected.
Chewiesbro@reddit
Short version will be that it will be chaotic as all get out, it won’t end well.
PersonBehindAScreen@reddit
I left the last place I was at that did that. I get it. Companies ebb and flow, standards come and go. And as a professional you will have to advocate for yourself sometimes.
I absolutely will not argue to LEADERSHIP of all people as to why a single digit number of us need a proper system in place to handle a four to five digit number of employees. If you need that explained to you, you do not need to work with me. Simple as that
hankhalfhead@reddit
Got a ticket from a user last week along the lines of
User: ‘I have some issues, can you come to my office for me to explain them to you’ Me: can I know what it relates to? Most of the stuff we have is fixed from here, here is where all my tools are User: is just easier to explain in person, can you come over
So I went over laptop. I sat, I listened, I put it all into a ticket in their name and then I left
Op: if I’m forced to do this, I’d work with y management team to ensure that the extra workload is essentially meetings and documenting tickets. I would make it clear that they can choose the agent for engagement, but the work will be allocated after the request is understood. If you have cross skilling, bring your sending to the meeting, allocate the work out and supervise it. The biggest overhead here is taking your skilled resources offline to baby people into documenting their requests. Stick to ITIL
ultradip@reddit
No paper trail, no work
jooooooohn@reddit
The ticket still gets made, so in the end you’ll just have less time available to support others. I’ll make someone continue to wait while I’m filling in a previous ticket. If they get upset, the ticket still has to be created and filled out. Most of them take the hint and create their tickets next time because they recognize the sense of community and everyone working together for the greater good.
JK I’ll just work later and slowly resent everyone a bit more.
Big_Statistician2566@reddit
Including the head of IT? I would look for another job.
UMustBeNooHere@reddit
Fuck that.
transwumao@reddit
In all honesty, this is a resume generating event.
daven1985@reddit
Congrats. Your Head of IT has no authority in the company.
Until a new one comes in you will also be shit kickers of the company.
brianthetechguy@reddit
Start looking for a new job now. Users lie. The tickets are there for cover your ass. In any sort of dispute where it isn't documented in a ticket, it will lose.
Jayhawker_Pilot@reddit
You will get 1/4 the amount of work completed if everything is a meeting that you have to show up to.
Oh and how do you deal with password resets if the person can't open a meeting? Maybe there is an upside to this.
breakfastpitchblende@reddit
The highly suspicious and cynical me expects they’re trying to tank your team’s performance so they can let you all go and outsource support.
Party-Wealth7797@reddit
We all recognize it’s a terrible idea but it is what it is. Why can’t tickets be opened internally by the team to track the issues?
microgiant@reddit
At this point, our ticketing system has become so cumbersome, I get it. We still require a ticket for every issue, but I certainly understand why people resent this and want it to change. There are dozens of fields to be filled out (literally), many of which don't use a drop-down menu so you have to actually know, ahead of time, what is a valid value to type in there. Including Team, Sub-Team, Group, and Technical Group.
But how is some random user supposed to know what to put there? And if they just fill it out randomly, it gives them an error message when they hit "Submit." They have to actually KNOW what is a valid Sub-Team. Who can they contact to find out? I have no idea. They could ask me, but I don't actually know what is a valid entry FOR EACH USER. Because different users have access to different queues.
fennecdore@reddit
I'm on the teams random user shouldn't have to fill the whole ticket, or just the bare minimum. It's the L1 job to take a look and correctly categorize and escalate the ticket
Physical-Modeler@reddit (OP)
What ticketing systems even still exist that can't be emailed to generate a ticket?
ms6615@reddit
We use one of the most complex and expensive PSA systems available on planet earth and our management just decided that nobody should be allowed to email a ticket ever, and are forcing everyone to the web portal which makes them fill out a bunch of unnecessary fields and tries to goad them into using an “ai chatbot” that’s fed with incorrect outdated support articles. All of our work is about to start getting delivered via teams messages, I’m assuming.
6Saint6Cyber6@reddit
We are in process of getting rid of email submission. The “thing is broken” emails suck a huge amount of resources to track down enough to even start to fix it.
General submission form requires Computer name or serial number Phone number Description of issue ( minimum 25 characters) Location
stewie410@reddit
When I started at the company, most employees would tell me "The System is Down". While it made perfect sense to them and their coworkers, to us its gibberish. "The System" referred to anything electronic not behaving exactly as they expect.
Over time, I managed to reiterate "What do you mean by 'System', can you show me?" enough that they learned "System" is too generic.
Then again, I'm not doing L1 anymore, so maybe they've reverted.
Worth_Efficiency_380@reddit
what ticket system can decipher "important pls help" as a proper ticket
Physical-Modeler@reddit (OP)
It doesn't decipher anything, a tech would assign it to themselves and ask for more details. Then there is proof that the IT helpdesk had done their part, and timestamps showing the issue is waiting on the user to properly describe it.
shadovvvvalker@reddit
so instead of forcing a user to spend 5% brainpower to actually write down what the issue is, you set up a queue of useless agents who have to decipher nonsense and then... email the user a form.
This is the issue \^.
If you are able to turn a work item into a standardized form you are able to standardize the process.
This is a huge time saver and does wonders for process control.
Enabling garbage email submissions just adds a layer of pointless slop.
Take a formalized service request.
Draw the process with and without email submission.
Email submission is always superfluous in that diagram. It only adds steps, never removes.
You can 100% go too hard and do it wrong. But form submission is never worse than email.
Physical-Modeler@reddit (OP)
If a user is emailing instead of using the form it's probably because the form sucks. We have both and it's never an issue.
shadovvvvalker@reddit
Users suck.
They will send blank emails with blank subjects if you let them. Dont ask me how i know this.
Email is a medium of minimal friction.
They already have outlook open. They just need to type IT in the to field and like 3 words and hit send.
You always get the most traffic on the path of least resistance.
Hence many places go emailless because support portals always have more friction.
Worth_Efficiency_380@reddit
yeah no. That is a massive waste. Reply with a link to the form and tell them the issue will be fixed only when they fill that out. Users wanna play tag all the time, don't include building, room, which computer, what the issue is, and its crickets when you ask. I just closed out a ticket and told them to resubmit it when they have the proper information. I'm not logging into 30 computers to figure out which one has the sound muted. They can give me the PC name.
Jaereth@reddit
For real. We allow Email tickets where you just "Describe your problem" and the queue will sort by the user who submitted it, but after that it's up to techs to categorize it from there.
When we first implemented this system I asked if we could make them use the web page (it's intranet) to submit a ticket and not just email so we COULD get those fields filled out and at least have the basic info and our director just said no we can't expect them to do all that!
Uncommented-Code@reddit
This is the big caveat.
If everything needs to be a ticket, creating a ticket must be easy and accessible, not a frustrating and confusing process.
My coworkers (I deserve absolutely no credit, I suck at documenting and UX) put their absolute best work into creating an easy to understand system and interface. I had to use out ticketing tool today to get some documentation published. Never used it. Took me about 45 seconds to find the correct buttons to press and fields to fill. Documentation was reviewed in 10 minutes and up.
Before, it would have taken me much longer to hit someone up for a second pair of eyes over mail or chat, and the result would have been half-assed anyways because there were no processes or standards in place.
I think I've been so traumatised by bad processes that I get this instinctive negative reaction sometimes, so this was a really refreshing change.
In that sense, I often wonder how efficient help desk is when I hear complaints about users not wanting to submit tickets and preferring to do it ad-hoc. It would certainly be something I would now consider if I arrived at a new company and the situation was like that.
microgiant@reddit
I would argue that our ticketing system is not only proof of inefficiency, it's proof that Jesus died in vain. Our race is accursed, and his sacrifice was for naught.
Jaereth@reddit
Stuff like this is a failing of the IT team running the ticketing system.
Affectionate_Ad_3722@reddit
Did nobody do any UAT or even basic critical thinking before rolling this out?
microgiant@reddit
"Basic critical thinking" isn't really part of our process...
I kid, I kid. I think the problem is that it wasn't rolled out all at once. When it started, there were only a few options, the company was smaller, and everyone knew exactly which team they were on because there were only a couple of teams. But as time went on, the company grew, the ticketing system became more complex, and of course the number of teams that any one person was on grew. I know my management team, my functional team, my technical group, but what about my organizational team? I ONLY need to know that when I fill out a ticket.
Affectionate_Ad_3722@reddit
BCT is sadly not SOP.
Who-ever keeps adding on options that require deep knowledge should probably stop though, or employ the "find most computer illiterate person in the company and ask them to try it" testing.
AmusingVegetable@reddit
Or find the most literate and cantankerous sysadmin and get an education on what belongs in a ticket.
Asking a user to correctly fill out twenty irrelevant boxes is stupid and only creates more busywork for all persons involved.
Who the fuck cares about “teams” in a ticket? All of those can be derived from the cmdb without wasting any more time. We don’t need CA-level monstrosities, we need simple tickets that can be reassigned and relabeled.
Affectionate_Ad_3722@reddit
"we need simple tickets that can be reassigned and relabeled."
Yes, and again, yes indeed.
AnnoyedVelociraptor@reddit
A team built an integration to some large scale ticketing system.
A whole bunch of mandatory drop downs with a LOT of data, no way to search them and ... not sorted...
microgiant@reddit
We may be co-workers...
obeythemoderator@reddit
That sure sounds like an absolute shit show.
IT_is_not_all_I_am@reddit
Honestly it's not really that big of a deal. Most organizations are like this informally for VIPs, and some organizations even have formal VIP/concierge support programs. What you're describing is just making everyone a VIP. I don't think that is inherently a bad thing, but it does of course have some challenges.
Here's what I've done in situations that are not quite as extreme as you described, but were similar:
Alternatively, maybe your ticketing system just sucks and there is legitimately something wrong with the normal process that you need to fix and then do a PR blitz about it. If people are really getting much faster service contacting people directly rather than going through your prescribed procedure, or their situations are really complex and your techs keep walking in to deal with issue and lack the necessary context, just fix those problems instead.
danstermeister@reddit
If the entire leadership of the organization is like this, and you are not in leadership, then this is permanent for this organization. This will not change for them.
ThesisWarrior@reddit
What at in the actual F ? Leave. Immediately.
dchit2@reddit
Sure, find a space in my calendar and book your 1 on 1. Put some notes on what you want to talk about though, otherwise I won't be prepared and we'll need to reschedule.
BinaryWanderer@reddit
People used to walk up to me while I was working at my desk and explain this complicated project or problem… before I even acknowledged them.
After a while I would look up and say: You’re going to regret not following the process we have established for this - because I heard parts of what you said while I was in the middle of debugging this script I need to work by Friday so our backups can run without issue on our database cluster.
I’m going to forget almost everything by the time I’m done with this task and not even attempt to start fixing it. So, you’ll have to repeat everything to our helpdesk so it can get triaged properly. Heck they may already know how to fix it.
Next time direct your efforts into doing this one time to the right people so we can all get on with our day.
KiNgPiN8T3@reddit
The Head of IT needs to grow a spine. He’s not there to fold like a lawn chair at their demands just for an easy ride. He needs to be fighting your corner and making sure people are following the IT processes. He’s also in the best position to grease wheels with hardware upgrades, new phones etc to get what he wants from other depts.(usually, whatever department is the most important! Once they are a firm believer in IT and have your back, you’re golden.) He’s honestly doing this all wrong… Doing things for an easy ride never results in an easy ride.
DJustinD@reddit
Use bookings. Have them book their time. Block out time to allow for other work as required. Problem solved.
__teebee__@reddit
Stop documenting everything. If they don't need to write stuff down then neither do you. I hope you don't work in a heavily regulated industry auditors love to fail companies that don't document property.
Setup a pc with a microphone they can talk at it and it and it'll turn that recording into an email then ticket.
If there's no ticket there's no SLA violations that is convenient.
Start billing for overtime. They want to see the evidence. Tell them it was a walk up thus no paper trail...
There's a million ways to make this "oppritunity" more in your favour.
Time to get creative...
weirdpastanoki@reddit
What size of org is it?
No one in my org will submit a ticket (100 users). It doesn't bother me that much tbh.
They lose out on reporting and accountability and i lose out on oversight and archeology. But if i really valued that oversight i could just get the team to create the ticket themselves. I decided not to go to war with the whole org over it. As a service provider I aim to align culturally with the rest of the org. If senior management don't view tickets as a valuable item thats ok with me.
mini4x@reddit
At 100 people that might work, but when you have 1000, 200, 10,000? it will not, we're 2200+ with 35 offices, With 15 or so helpdesk staff. You absolutely need a robust ticket system at that point.
dustojnikhummer@reddit
We got around 70 people and boi am I so fucking glad that everyone knows "no ticket no work" rule.
Would you be surprised that "Ticket or I will forget" is a surprisingly good argument?
mini4x@reddit
I use this all the time, if the issue isn't important enough for you to document it, then it's not worth my time to fix it.
weirdpastanoki@reddit
Thats why i asked the question.
volster@reddit
it's tempting to say "with a systematic gaslighting campaign" but in reality i think the answer is "by not taking it personally"
With leadership changing for what certainly sounds like a shift towards cluelessness, in reality it might be time to start looking.
However in the interim just remember that "you are not your job" - It's not your fault or problem to try and overcompensate for the resultant shitshow.
Off the top of my head, the main obvious knock-on effects are gonna be productivity tanking - Instead of doing 20-30 tickets a day, suddenly you might be doing.... 5.
Even without resorting to malicious compliance, response times could easily go from being days/hours to weeks/months - Especially if they're demanding to see a specific named-person and every request is now a desk visit.
Management will lose the ability to quantitively measure performance .... Although, without any queue you'll actually be batting at 100% all the time - For the people you get to 🤷♂️
Triage is also out the window in favour of "first come, first served" - After all, you can only be in one meeting at a time.... The big-boss will just have to wait for you to be back at your desk.
Not to mention that once you've started a task you're locked into it; As without any documentation, follow-ups are gonna be pretty much nil beyond it happening to be a slow day and you remember it.
burnte@reddit
Quit.
Accomplished_Ad7106@reddit
No tickets = no problems. My boss is a strong believer of CYA, "if its not in writing then it didn't happen"
Additional-Sun-6083@reddit
How would I handle it? Find a new job, because nothing good comes from this kind of nonsense.
Outside of that as others have said, super simple to just forget "tickets" now and not get problem resolution. The IT manager shouldn't be a manager.
timwtingle@reddit
The cool thing is that three different people will contact three different tech about a problem, perhaps the same problem that is not just with them but a system or departmental issue and it may take three hours to figure it out but if three tickets came in for the same issue, it would be obvious.
LeaveMickeyOutOfThis@reddit
Set up a phone line with voicemail, which then emails the ticketing system, with the voicemail recording, to create a low priority ticket. Then deal with that appropriately. Anyone wanting escalation, must log ticket directly.
DarraignTheSane@reddit
If IT leadership isn't on board, you don't.
Either learn to half ass everything and let things fall through the cracks until they learn that there are reasons for a ticketing system, or start job hunting.
woemoejack@reddit
Yep.
Every helpdesk person becomes a faceless cog. No direct phone #s for anyone - just a single helpdesk phone queue.
Every helpdesk agent gets a random character string anonymized mail alias which is removed from the company directory. The only helpdesk email available is the main queue.
This makes email and calls only come in one way, and the tickets get created at the start of the interaction. Forced compliance.
The pain is clearly requested and deserved.
usa_reddit@reddit
Maybe generate tickets yourself and assign to user? Have a junior or entry level do this. Will get much better info in tickets for RCA.
JamieTenacity@reddit
I would let people raise issues however they want, but make zero promises about how quickly I’ll respond, log the tickets myself and only then start working on them.
I do this anyway. If a Teams message pops up that’s clearly an Incident or Request, I read it whenever works for me. Which is often a day or so later. If you call me directly, I might answer. It depends what I’m already doing.
However, a logged ticket gets a response in 15 mins to 2 hours. A phone call to the Service Desk number gets a response within seconds.
Their choice.
Nik_Tesla@reddit
Tell the new leaders that you need tickets in order to provide metrics to them. Management goes nuts for metrics.
AlaskanDruid@reddit
As long as they have it written that work is not a KPI, and cannot be considered as part of your raise/evaluation, you should be fine.
Otherwise.. nope. Ticket for everything!
roboto404@reddit
I wouldn’t know how to handle this, honestly. Even the dumbest upper management guy I know is aware of how important documentation is.
B0rnReady@reddit
Yes. Absolutely.
We have a medical center and a "main campus"
The medical center provided white glove service. Call a tech on their cell, mention the problem. Have it resolved within 5 minutes.
The main campus has had a desperate adherence to itil methodology and loves tickets and logging. Days without resolving the problem because they so strongly believe it's more important to keep the ticket system fed than the problem fixed.
The med center just said "no" we want out white glove service back.
The specific techs are happier to be able to go back to just getting the work done. The users feel cared about. Nothing really gets missed. Projects still get tickets. Tickets get fed into the system AFTER the job is done for record keeping....
Maybe at some point the director will move on to greener pastures and let better people step in but until then, we have to deal with short man syndrome being given authority over way more than he is competent enough to handle.
EchoPhi@reddit
Free ride to no work town! Enjoy.
"Hey I saw him in the parking lot and told him about my issues"
"No you didn't
"Hey I called this in yesterday"
"No you didn't"
Then go to your boss and tell them how awesome it is all the problems are solved and you have tons of free time to work on infrastructure because no one has any end user issues.
da_chicken@reddit
I've never seen that.
What industry are you in? It shouldn't be too difficult to convert it to something that makes it crystal clear why it's important.
Ask the financial guy how many checks he writes without an invoice or a purchase order, for example.
That, plus you and your team need to have a come to Jesus meeting with your manager. A serious intervention about how severely he's undermined the ability of your team to get work done.
ILikeFPS@reddit
You have two options.
1) Leave and find a sane job with an IT department not led by morons.
2) Embrace the chaos and have some fun. Oh, you're having an issue with your keyboard? I never got that request.
retrogreq@reddit
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA
no
Kaneshadow@reddit
I love when people think they're smarter than all of recorded IT history.
Here's the answer: allow users to request help on the phone, but have your techs create the ticket manually afterwards and add them. Then the tech can keep track and you have the records to show them how 1 guy got 50% of the tickets and has a 2 week wait time for his attention.
GhonaHerpaSyphilAids@reddit
I worked at a place that didn’t want to do tickets. So I now on paper said I did more work in bogus requests and things that took 15 min now took 45 min. I would drive 2 hours to deliver printer ink and I would claim I resolved 7 tickets at the site one for each color delivered and 1 more each color installed
clubfungus@reddit
This is the IT equivalent of homeopathy. Forget all that rigor and procedural stuff. Just do what feels good. No, I've never seen an organization regress like this. Sorry, dude.
RamblinLamb@reddit
Runaway shoulder taps! What could possibly go wrong??!!
xzer@reddit
Some members will probably be better at some things but I don't see why this wouldn't start as a ticket.
old_school_tech@reddit
We have a ticket system where a user sends an email to our help desk system. Filling out a form was far too complicated for them..
Sometimes, our users can't explain the issue, so they phone or call into our office. We fix it.
We often have a user just email our work email, so we just forward it to the ticket system and then add them as a user when it hits the system. No big drama. If one of us is away sick, the email just sits in our email box until we are back. User waits... they get the message eventually that emailing directly to the ticket system is quicker.
As IT we often get to rigid about the ticket system, our relaxed approach works quite well. They get the message in the end.
sakatan@reddit
This is where malicious compliance needs to be lived.
You want to schedule a meeting to show me the issue? Next available slot is on Friday and will be rescheduled once or twice.
You want to call? I may not pick up.
You told me to do something over the phone? I have no written record of what's been discussed.
...
Let it burn.
dustojnikhummer@reddit
I was trained to call about an issue, talk over a potential solution and then write it down in an email. Papertrail is one thing, but also making sure both sides understood what was decided. It saved me my ass numerous times.
kagato87@reddit
By ignoring a moderately visible non-critical failure where the ticket was not created, and asking for the ticket number when it is raised.
If they say "I sent an e-mail" - a simple response of "I can't keep track of e-mail requests. My inbox is almost as bad as yours!" usually does the trick. (Or any other message type.)
And if they then double down and say something inane like "well you can use folders and flags in your e-mail" a simple response of "you mean like like a ticketing system?" will get you scowls and compliance.
dustojnikhummer@reddit
Many things wouldn't get done and I would probably leave/get fired. For me, tickets aren't just a proof of work (and a papertrail of decision and tasks) but also a todo list. When colleagues ask for for something, even very tiny (something I could do in 3 minutes if I could do it right now, like resetting a domain password), I tell them to "Sure, submit a ticket, otherwise I will forget, thanks"
Marky224@reddit
That's just the nature of the beast, end-users hate creating tickets and IT techs hate creating tickets on behalf of end-users.
Time to get some cost-effective AI agents to help with this, which will allow your IT team to do a whole lot more with less.
Check out Thread if you have a PSA in place (getthread.com)
jimmyandrews@reddit
How would I deal with it? Standard open office hours. Daily, a couple times a week, weekly, etc. depending on needs and availability.
This gives you a bit of a funnel of control, can still do some informal tracking, and can get some data on repeat issues.
tipsle@reddit
Train your team members to ask if they submitted the ticket; if no, have the team member create the ticket themselves, and then do the work.
You're gonna burn out your really good techs and they'll get 0 credit for it. Even if they send the email to the queue themselves with the user details - and then later they go close the ticket. The only people that will suffer from the "no ticket" policy are your really good techs. Don't do that to them.
Also... if the users want to schedule the meeting - create a distribution list with your entire team, and have the user send the meeting invite request to the distribution list. Create a standard naming convention for the subject TECH NAME | USER - PROBLEM. Share the calendar with everyone, and change the permissions to "Can view all details". Remember to have everyone CC that calendar invites for PTO as well.
Everyone will eventually see how stupid it is and stop.
phunky_1@reddit
I would say goodbye lol
grahag@reddit
Without tickets, you can't track metrics. Without metrics, you can't prioritize or forecast. Without forecasting, you can't predict your labor needs. Without proper labor, you can't guarantee SLA.
You can have your people submit those tickets for the work they do and then push for intradepartmental billing as a way to highlight your needs.
Our Legal and HR department don't like to make tickets, so we make tickets in their name. We're having this discussion right now actually where we get tossed under the bus all the time and our need to document everything we do counts in our favor. The more we document, the less we have to think about how we're covering ourselves.
InvestmentLoose5714@reddit
I’ve seen everything is a ticket reach a level of stupidity I never thought possible, and on the other hand, I’m the one who requested other teams to create tickets for our teams when they needed something.
Going more towards tickets is mandatory when there is no other choice. Like when the team drops from 6 to 1 for a week due to holiday and sickness and all hell breaking loose at the same time.
I think there is a balance to find and I try to follow the agile manifesto on this. Not the scrum or agile crap that exists now, but the original manifesto: people over process, running software over documentation,..
DoctorOctagonapus@reddit
If it's not in a ticket, it didn't happen. No ticket, no work.
You didn't fix the user's issue? What issue? No record of any issue here.
RCTID1975@reddit
You find a new job is what you do. If you're not in leadership/management, you're not going to change policies or culture.
El_Demente@reddit
Recipe for complete disaster. Sounds like your team is slipping back to the stone age. Probably a leading indicator to GTFO, to put it bluntly.
StoneCypher@reddit
Your best bet is to write a short screed about why this is industry normal, and what's going to happen when they go try to forge their own path. They aren't going to listen.
This is what lines you up to climb the ladder when this batch of leaders is removed.
lost_in_life_34@reddit
i get it having IT people dedicated to specific teams or people who know their issues but you can't have people just calling IT and expecting attention right away or leaving VM's. put in a ticket and your favorite IT person will get back to you
dunnage1@reddit
That’s kind of how I operate now as the sole IT guy. I don’t need a ticket for everything. For major stuff yes to document. But for stuff that users need help with. I note it in azure open AI, it documents it and adds it to the repository automatically.
kriebz@reddit
"Please wait while I make you a ticket", or just quit.
radenthefridge@reddit
Well then it's up to the individual IT people to enforce their own "I need a ticket" rule.
And then since every single person needs a ticket, and sometimes they're not available, perhaps they could have some sort of...team ticket place to send to? Perhaps a queue or something?
And since certain IT person never reads their emails during the day (I'm totally not ignore them, just in face-to-face meetings with every single person who wants my help! Really!), maybe they could make an email that like...emails more than 1 person?
Shit, maybe that email could even make a ticket!!
Be the ~~huge pain in the ass until you train your userbase~~ change you want to see!
Khaaaaannnn@reddit
If the argument of “documented tickets help with issues in the future as we can go back and see similar issues” doesn’t reverse this stupid policy, it’s time to start looking for a new job. This will burn you out faster that a toilet covered in gasoline.
SwiggitySwooped@reddit
This sounds insane. I thought this mindset died out
TheStig827@reddit
I'll just say that by this process, there's no metrics to determine how well you're doing, but also no metrics to determine how much you're slacking off.
If you and your cohorts were to say, just significantly start taking advantage of the lack of metrics, leading to a downturn in end user satisfaction.. this whole thing will probably work itself out ;)
Caldazar22@reddit
I’ve usually experienced this only for high ranking members of the organization. Their time is more value, they want special treatment due to ego, and well, they authorize paychecks.
This seems highly inefficient to me. But if guess if I were in your shoes I would follow orders, but then still use the ticketing system to file requests on behalf of the users. You still need the paper trail; otherwise stuff falls through the cracks as you point out. The tickets also help prioritize work, which addresses the stress, since you can lay it all out and decide what tasks will just have to wait.
This structure only seems reasonable to me if you’re working in a big-money environment where IT guys are basically the lowest-paid employees, and so their time is relatively most expendable.
azurite--@reddit
Not in my org, literally everyone on the Executive Board puts in tickets. The CEO/Owner, President, CFO, etc., they ALL put in tickets and are always respectful.
The people who never do in my experience are regular end users who think it's too hard to go to a URL and enter in a subject and description of their issue.
fishypianist@reddit
yeah, c-suite users don't enter tickets. They get to just call/message directly. all others should be directed to enter a ticket.
If management doesn't care about tickets I won't either, but I would ask what metrics matter or how do I know I am doing well in this position.
I worked one job where the bar was that the if the head of IT wasn't getting complaints we were good. We still used a ticketing system there, but had a coworker who would always cave if anyone reached directly out to them so was much harder to track sporadic issues since there was no history.
StiM_csgo@reddit
Why does this have to be an issue? How end users log tickets is ultimately a non issue and how the IT Team deal with 'requests' has nothing to do with end users. So keep your ticket system, instruct colleagues/end users to request support in whichever way they feel most comfortable and your procedures do the rest from there which should be:
My ethos has always been, talk to me, I don't mind how, I'm easy, I'm here to help you. BUT, it's all going into a ticket either way so if you care about my time, just make a ticket at the source. Yes anything other than email (to ticket system) and web ticket submissions is 'inefficient' but you're going to have to get used to that in this job, way better to be seen as accessible rather than perceived as difficult.
daktania@reddit
I would start looking elsewhere.
arslearsle@reddit
No problems - AI is gonna solve all this. Some c level asshole promised 🙏🏻👍😎
arslearsle@reddit
No ticket id , no issue… Unless from the ceo or some other c level asshole…bye bye ITIL 😂
crzdcarney@reddit
Holy shit did you just get my old boss?
Illustrious_Try478@reddit
There are some extremely petty answers here. The answer is, IT team members create the tickets themselves.
Kitchen_Image_1031@reddit
Nickel and diming emails. Have a jar setup. And see how fast it fills up.
Particular_Archer499@reddit
I would say "go fuck yourself, then open a ticket". But I also get yelled at periodically.
bloodguard@reddit
Reply to each email, text and phone call with the url of whatever issue tracking software you use.
Repeat as often as necessary.
Anonycron@reddit
How big of an organization is it? I've seen small or mid size orgs do away with the bureaucracy of mandatory tickets and it worked fine - better even, in some cases.
But it is not scalable at all. So large orgs with lots of support requests will not have a good time.
JustCallMeBigD@reddit
As far as IT end-users go, we're a relatively small operation. Most of our staff are yard workers and mechanics. As a result, we really can't justify the cost of an IT ticketing SaaS.
For a while, we were using Quickbase for our retail branch with a custom-made inventory control application. Our licensing allowed us to make unlimited apps, so I put together a pretty bitchin' IT inventory/documentation/ticketing system that we were using for a while, but then come contract renewal, Quickbase tried to more-than-double our annual rate due to the volume of API calls between Quickbase and our retail website. Bye-bye, Quickbase...
Recently, I've introduced our Office Coordinator to Microsoft To Do, and I have a list shared with her to put "tickets" on. Super basic, but it's been helping to keep track of the issues instead of flooding my inbox.
Ideally, I'd like to put together a little ditty with MS Access, but I've always had a hard time wrapping my head around Access and just don't have the time to burn to learn it well enough.
lutiana@reddit
The best way to deal with this to become more dogmatic about tickets, and get your whole team on board with it. If a requests comes in from anywhere but the ticketing system, your response should be "Did you put in a ticket for that?" possibly adding that you are swamped and tickets are the only way you can keep track of and address issues. And if the issue does come in via the ticketing system you need to respond immediately, even if the response is "Thanks for the ticket, we'll get to it ASAP".
This can be done subtly by the way. Just have your whole team on board with this, and they can then "forget" issues that are verbally given to them, or lost in their inboxes. Hard for your leadership to prove you did not actually forget it or not.
Basically people need to be taught that tickets get the highest priority with the fastest resolution times, and anything else gets dropped to the bottom of the list and therefore takes the longest time to resolve (if ever).
yamanu@reddit
Allow phone tickets to be opened on behalf of end users. Keep tracking every request.
Dizzy_Bridge_794@reddit
That isn’t sustainable. Leads to no prioritization of issues in the department. No ability to track.
kerosene31@reddit
I hate to say it, once upper mangement has made a dumb decision, they have to learn it on their own.
Honestly? Everyone needs to slow down and increase response time. And yes, even have a few get "lost" along the way.
When management comes in and finally asks, "Why is it taking so long?" - you politely respond with "well, if we had a ticketing system, we could tell you" (In a nicer way). The overhead from not having a ticketing system is probably slowing us down, but without metrics, we can't know for sure.
You have to make them think it was their idea. "If we only had a way to get better metrics...". Eventually, the light bulb will pop.
ThatLocalPondGuy@reddit
Stop forcing them to use tickets. You can do integrations to slack and teams with most service platforms. Ticket convos feel like chats, and those direct messages to your team members can be flipped into tickets directly from the chat.
Fix the system and people will use it.
Expensive_Plant_9530@reddit
I mean if this is how they want to do it, sure. But your team productivity is going to tank badly.
I have zero issues with someone calling IT. I’ll create a ticket right there for them on the phone.
And if this sort of system happened, I’d still be creating a ticket anyway. I’d just be writing down what they tell me.
If management wants to pay me to write other people’s ticket? Okay, I guess. Less work for me doing more important things though.
techdog19@reddit
All you can do is let it fail. Once people start suffering they will ask for tickets back.
entropic@reddit
Seems like it moves the onus of making, organizing and prioritizing requests onto IT themselves, so you'll probably still use a ticket system or some other work/request management system, it will simply be internal rather than both internal to IT and external to the org/their stakeholders.
One of my IT "hot takes" for many years has been that if the user won't create the ticket, just create it for them. If you have a ticket system that makes this easy/fast, it's really not a big deal. You can leave them on unread in chat/email/voicemail if you're busy then just tell them "I made it a ticket for you for this, so it's in our queue" when you get to it.
IT orgs that choose ticket systems with poor UI or poor implementation or are hard or opaque for end users to use tend to have more trouble, enough that no one wants to use them. So at least pick something that is valuable for IT to use if no one else will use it.
The idea that you wouldn't have a queue if you didn't have a ticket system isn't rational, but I suspect that your users don't have to have to wait for service and have been successful at doing that by avoiding the ticket system in the past. It's likely that there's not enough skilled IT staffing to do that, though.
Barrerayy@reddit
That's one of the dumbest things I've read today
Break2FixIT@reddit
I love reading how the idea of just go with it will eventually lead to them wanting to put in tickets again.. IT NEVER WORKS THAT WAY..
You will be fired before you get your tickets back.. it is easier to blame someone for not remembering everything.. when they already expect you to know everything about computers on the spot during their question.
The only answer is to leave for a company that wants tickets.
CAPICINC@reddit
Shared voicemail, text to speech, email the vm message, there's your ticket.
JaschaE@reddit
How is that more stresful? Nope, can't work on *time-sensitive-thing* got a sheduled meeting about connecting a printer
lucky644@reddit
So no accountability for anyone, eh?
What a ridiculous situation.
Let it burn…
LALLANAAAAAA@reddit
Document your objections, then prepare to embrace chaos imo, it's their funeral
Then start looking for a new job
Stingray_Sam@reddit
Type it out into an email, send it to the customer "Is this correct?"
And make their reply a ticket for them.
ComeAndGetYourPug@reddit
Yes, and the ticket system being optional is actually great! If you're wondering how that's a positive, it's because most people are lazy af and won't put in a ticket when I ask them to. They'll either give up, or call someone else.
Yes, the ticketing system is my "wally reflector."
But here's the thing, we're chronically understaffed. So my coworkers are running around like chickens with their heads cut off jugging calls, walk-ups, hall stops, IMs, Fwd: Re: Fwd: SUPER IMPORTANT email chains, etc.
I'm almost the only one actually working tickets. So it's one at a time, at my own pace. In reality I'm putting in less overall "effort", but if you look at productivity, I'm doing like 3x the work of any other person in the entire department.
My manager is remote, so they ask what I'm working on right now? I'm almost done with ticket #####, and about to start ticket #####. They say "Oh ok good, keep it up!"
DerpyMcWafflestomp@reddit
If the leadership doesn't understand how this is absolutely stupid then there's no hope.
Spectremax@reddit
If IT leadership doesn't back it up/enforce it, it's over.
Pristine_Curve@reddit
The default state is anarchy. Most processes will devolve like this without active efforts to maintain discipline.
This is a significant mistake on their part. If they were getting pressured by leadership to not require written ticket requests, the failure mode should have been "call # support number". Where the helpdesk creates the ticket for them.
ITPro is going to be at the hospital with their newborn, and Jim from accounting is going to call them incessantly insisting that only ITPro can solve their particular issue.
AlternativeJaguar967@reddit
The slightest request should take several hours, even for something bogus. Lack of trace of the activity, no way to measure the real load: You're on vacation. They will turn around when they see that they have no idea what you do with your days. In the meantime, take advantage of the loophole ;)
LegendarySysAdmin@reddit
Yeah, I’ve definitely seen orgs regress like that when leadership shifts and processes aren’t reinforced. When ticket systems aren’t consistently backed up by leadership, people revert to what feels easiest: direct access and informal requests. It feels faster in the moment but blows up downstream with poor tracking, duplicated efforts, and no accountability. IT ends up playing whack-a-mole while the queue becomes a black hole.
Once the culture of “tickets are optional” sets in, it’s tough to reverse without a strong push from leadership. It usually takes either a serious outage or measurable productivity loss to trigger a reset. Otherwise, it just keeps drifting toward chaos. Sounds like you're right in the middle of that tipping point.
plumbumplumbumbum@reddit
A good ticket system is one that makes users feel its the fastest way to get things done. If calling/walkup is faster that's what they will do.
Simplifying the ticket system reequipments for the end user help by removing required fields and opening other paths to creating a ticket like a web portal. email address, teams/slack/whatever chat integration. You can work the problem from the other end at the same time by introducing barriers to the call/walkup. The Wally Reflector is a great way to put backpressure on those users.
grouchy-woodcock@reddit
No ticket, no help, no exceptions.
Desnowshaite@reddit
"Ever since I had covid twice I have a bit of a brain fog and I forget a lot of things. Please create a ticket or email me the details as I guarantee I will forget 75% of what you just told me as soon as I leave this meeting. Thank you for your understanding."
Bright_Arm8782@reddit
Let it burn.
No records, no logs, everything becomes he said / he said.
And lose whatever memory of requests you had if there's no written records.
wrootlt@reddit
Not that i want go back to it, but playing devil's advocate here. My previous work didn't have ticketing system. It was my first job, so i didn't know better. We have only started doing change management and were thinking about ticketing right before me leaving. 14 years with verbal requests, emails and calls. It started as a small 50 users org. In the end 200+ with me and another support tech. We managed. If i had too much on my plate, i would delegate to colleague. Prioritizing items myself or asking my boss, meanwhile doing projects, etc. We had to be very organized. Maybe this is why i am now always on top of things.
Timothy303@reddit
Without tickets nothing can be effectively tracked.
Some projects will get lost for that to become apparent again.
You don’t have to be malicious. It’s gonna happen no matter what. Be there to point it out (assuming that is safe to do: not every company is going to accept even 100% accurate and fair criticism, so use caution).
meaniesg@reddit
Get the agents to say that they really want to help but "no ticket, no service". It's policy and the agent could lose their job over it.
However the bigger issue here is that if the head of IT is against it as well then you have bigger problems. That fella has no place being head of IT.
PositiveAnimal4181@reddit
This is madness. I would get out if you can OP as it sounds like either your leadership or the organization's leadership don't know what they're doing literally at all with IT and that's never a good omen.
ShitMcClit@reddit
So i dont have to meet sla now? Sounds great to me.
AspiringTechGuru@reddit
My org didn't even approve the implementation of a ticketing system; it was deemed as "too much overhead". Meanwhile I get questions such as "what are the most common issues people have?" or "how many people have problems a day?", to which I respond that "our IT director said it was too much overhead in tracking these things, so we don't".
It's a disaster waiting to happen, but at least will not be my issue (primarily).
livevicarious@reddit
I don't answer emails anymore, tickets only. If its a general question sure, if its not a ticket, get fucked. How are we supposed to track metrics? Customer satisfaction etc if you don't use tickets?
MOST ticketing systems USE email for them to create one. If they can EMAIL you, they can create a ticket. It's the same fuckin thing.
samtresler@reddit
I mean. The only solution to that is for IT to immediately open a ticket for the person.
I would take my sweet ass time opening a proper ticket and document the time. When the inevitable performance hit happens, show them that 20% of your time is now spent doing an essential part of the job that used to be performed by the person needing the request.
qsub@reddit
Been in IT for some time now, I guess I'm a veteran. I'm at the point where I simply could care less. Things never make sense in IT, things aren't worth getting upset over in IT, douchebag users aren't worth letting them ruin your day. Sometimes things that make sense from an IT standpoint just doesn't make sense form a business stand point and that's ok.
To answer your question, there is nothing to 'deal' with here, you are not the manager/director, you are not calling the shots.
If this is leading to longer call times and management is asking why, outline the process and timeline in a nicely worded email to management and go on with your day.
dukot@reddit
I've always insisted on at least an e-mail. I tell people that it allows me to do research beforehand and then I take up less of their time. Whereas if you call me, I'll be having to spend more time on the phone, while I research the issue with you on the phone. Unless you're just wanting an excuse to not work?
Squossifrage@reddit
"This is fine as long as there are enough staff to adequately serve these issues and we are beholden to absolutely zero performance metrics related to servicing them."
Then just turn into a huge jerk nobody ever requests and you can sit in your office and get paid to browse Reddit."
BlueHatBrit@reddit
Take a leaf from the French. Grab a high-vis jacket and a megaphone. This is the sort of thing that could be sorted pretty easily with a bit of organisation between your colleagues.
Doesn't have to be as extreme as going on strike, although it probably would get the matter sorted pretty quickly. It could be as easy as calling a department meeting and telling your boss that you're not okay with it and he needs to do better. He'll get the message pretty quickly.
As an industry we need to stop being pushovers. Especially in the West, IT is the new manufacturing. It's probably time we started learning from those older industries.
Mindestiny@reddit
Have I seen it? Yes.
Do I support it? No.
Unfortunately unless you're the shot caller you can either put up with it or leave. I'd expect there's going to be a lot of "IT support sucks! Response times are awful!" Feedback from the business in about 6 months because this makes it impossible for techs to triage work
SoonerMedic72@reddit
When I was in medicine, the rule was “if it isn’t documented, then it didn’t happen.”
I would treat the requests the same way. Triage your request with the documented tickets go first, then if there is time, you can work on other stuff. 🤷♂️
corky63@reddit
If the user does not create a ticket then have IT create the ticket. We call these retrospective tickets.
Hotshot55@reddit
Why don't you create the ticket before the work is done?
boli99@reddit
because its important that the record of information comes from the requestor
i wouldnt want to be blamed by someone saying "oh well i didnt say that and you must have written it down wrong" - this would not be an isolated incident.
i want their words, in their ticket, created by them
Hotshot55@reddit
It's not really that important to make a user write down "monitor broke".
boli99@reddit
if they're claiming a monitor is broken then those are the 2 words they need to write in a ticket. they dont need to write an essay - but they need to put those words in
...because later, when it turns out that 'monitor not even plugged in' or 'cable obviously chewed by puppy' - then a record of that is necessary - otherwise user will say 'oh i didnt mean it wasnt working. i meant it was flickering' or 'i meant steves monitor, not mine'
Hotshot55@reddit
Yeah that's really not that important. Put your findings in the notes and get over yourself.
boli99@reddit
its kinda important to be able to prove when users lie.
Humble_Wish_5984@reddit
Nope. Wrong answer.
Old-Olive-4233@reddit
Agreed. If you want this type of behavior, you set up a dedicated Help Desk phone number and people call into that and it becomes an approved method of receiving assistance and the tech creates a ticket as part of the process ... the end users should not be reaching out to the techs directly. I've worked at a few companies with that and if no one is available to take the call, it gets transcribed and a ticket gets generated off the voicemail (one didn't have that and people would have to listen to the voicemails to manually summarize ... this wasn't nearly as convenient)
My general go-to for people that hit me up in the hallway was something along the lines of "I'm so sorry, I'm on my way to help someone else with their issue and I have the memory of a goldfish and likely won't remember to reach out about this, can you shoot an email to Helpdesk@mycompany.org and I can take a look at this when I get back or it's also possible someone else will have already helped you and resolved the ticket before I get back, if this current issue takes me longer than I expect"
\^ is self depreciating enough that it makes the issue relatable but not so bad that it makes you look incompetent (at least in my experience) and clearly shows that it's in their best interest to put in a ticket.
Tickets make things better for everyone, especially when all you have to do is throw an email in, I don't understand why some people are so against them.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
sccmjd@reddit
You can always "forget" or purposely delay responses if they don't submit a ticket.
But then be sure to respond to tickets quickly. And make it as easy as possible. Something as simply as email saying, "I need help," is good enough. I can dig up any other info I want on them. I personally don't really like forms that make you submit 20+ details just to submit a ticket when it's a simple question.
I end up avoided certain people in person because I know they will have one or a string of "issues' pop into their heads when they see me. If I wasn't there, no issue.
"Ok," tends to work as a generic reply when I do get caught in person. That can be interpreted a lot of ways, from me acknolweding hat I heard them to agreeing to fix the problem to just some kind of guttural response. Maybe it's an, "Ok, I'll get to it when I can," or, "Ok, I don't know why you're telling me this in person when you could have, should have submitted a ticket," or, "Ok, I'll pretend I didn't hear that or you weren't asking for help."
A lot of people are influenced if I saw I'm right in the middle of something (because it's true) or that I have a meeting or something scheduled. Having something scheduled are the magic words. Maybe I have lunch scheduled. Maybe I have "wrap up my stuff at the end of the day" scheduled... very generally.
When the ticket system didn't work, I have worked solely off email. That gets difficult to organize and keep track of compared to just having a ticket system.
Besides avoiding people in person, you can also avoid them online. Sign in on a different computer and set that aside. Go work on your projects on another machine so people aren't bothering you.
I can work to take people's emails who do email you and forward those onto the ticket system. ... when you get to that.
And there are other games you can play, like sending a fresh email instead of replying back on one. Or digging up an old issue and asking if that's still an issue. The ticket system keeps everything nice and organized, pretty much, but a lot of emails can muddy the water.
I would put projects as something different though. That might be a ticket but I could see a meeting for something that needs more discussions, where things can move along that couldn't happen in emails.
Ultimately, it's a policy. If someone's not going to set policy for it and support it when it's used or not, that makes things more difficult. That doesn't mean you have to smooth everything out when it's the wild west.
For my users, I have enough to know their hardware and software. I kind of know them. And enough users to not know them that well.
On thing I haven't done is pull the same stuff with users and do things like mention something to someone in passing and then demand they respond. It's always in an email so there's a paper trail.
And then there are actual emergencies but those are super rare. If the conference rooms are under control, it might be a machine actually smoking once in a decade.
PedanticDilettante@reddit
If the user won't write down their concern then you have to have your support personnel document the interaction in a ticket.
dlongwing@reddit
Your leadership isn't qualified to lead an IT department. As for what to do? Leadership has instituted a change in policy. Get them to provide you with the new policy in writing (CYA!), and then... handle issues in an undocumented and disorganized way:
Pretty soon, people will start complaining that the quality of support has dropped. When leadership comes to you to read you the riot act about it, simply deny it and ask them for numbers showing an overall decrease. You've been on top of all requests you've been given. They're mistaken. They said they'd solve that themselves. That person just likes to complain. Etc.
"Hey boss, what if we tell them all to send their requests as emails to one unified address? I think I've got a good address in mind too! That way we'll have proof of what's been asked and what's been addressed."
boli99@reddit
dont forget "solve the wrong issue from time to time. problem with WS28? go troubleshoot WS29 for 2 hours, then come back and say 'no problem detected'"
Lunatic-Cafe-529@reddit
Personally, I'd make the user wait while I open a ticket on every single issue. I'm not working without documenting what I did. If anyone pushes back, I would explain I need to keep track for future reference. I typically am very bright and cheerful while doing it; "Oh, my! That sounds like quite a troublesome issue! Let me just open a ticket and we'll get to work!" Generally prevents anyone from complaining.
Yes, it's annoying, but I am adamant about needing that information. And if I find the ticketing system too burdensome to use, well then, I guess the users have a point.
Hotshot55@reddit
Yeah, that's kinda the whole point of having a helpdesk. They take the words from the users and write them down in the tickets.
Physical-Modeler@reddit (OP)
For clarity they also are rejecting the concept of calling the main IT line or walking in to have a ticket generated by a helpdesk team member. It's more like "Jim the DB admin fixes stuff, let me call and ask him about my Teams being slow, I don't even know who works helpdesk" types of things going on.
boli99@reddit
make every call last 90 minutes. ask them to describe their screen to you every 10 seconds. eventually they'll learn that you can't talk a screenshot into someones ear.
jackoneilll@reddit
They have to stay on the phone with you the whole time. The moment that call ends, someone else calls you and you will have to work on that call instead of finishing the one before.
Hotshot55@reddit
Oh yeah that's completely fucked upside down if management is on board with this behavior.
jcpham@reddit
I tell people straight up put it in writing or it will not get done. The only person who can give me verbal commands is my direct report, the CEO.
Want something computerrrrrr done write that shit in an email or submit a ticket.
Even more so for any type of change request to a system in production. Not changing anything to a system generating revenue unless approved and in writing. That goes for new employees whatever.
Write it down or tell on me
Key-Pace2960@reddit
I dunno, I've definitely been in situations where ticket systems were effectively just administrative overhead and a waste of time. It felt like we spent more time dealing with the ticket system than with actual tickets. So I kind of get it, but that also depends heavily on the size of your company, manpower and structure.
xpxp2002@reddit
I used to work at a place that had a CIO who was very customer service-oriented, and insisted on helping people over enforcing opening tickets. Basically, it was more important to them to have the user issue addressed quickly and without friction than encourage employees to follow a process that helps everyone.
Thus, there was no accurate tracking of workload. Issues got lost for follow-up or during handoff to other teams all the time. But at least didn't dare tell someone to go back and fill out a form. Even though, you know, HR and payroll require it and no one bats an eye.
In my experience, it's screaming into the void trying to change that culture and attitude. If leadership doesn't care, and isn't receptive to facts, they're never going to change their minds. So you either slog it out until there's turnover at the top, or leave.
vawlk@reddit
i wouldn't work for an organization like that.
Plain and simple.
azzers214@reddit
So I 'm going to give you something more constructive - yes it's stupid, but...
Often what you can see as a stupid request is a dissatisfaction with the service level they are currently receiving. If I fill out a ticket and my issue is not resolved correctly or timely, my trust in that system and the time I spend filling it out decreases.
It's also true most technical staff would prefer to never even work/talk to the end consumer. So you can end up with a situation where the system works fine for the technical staff who are by and large blind to how ineffective they're being. In fact, the higher level the staff, often the more "reflexive" their distaste with end clients is.
This is ok... as long as the work is getting done. But you can end up with a situation where the technical staff "hides" behind the ticketing system.
--
So realistically, you want a series of roundtables and the only question of relevance is "what is the business problem we're trying to solve?" I'd like a million dollars, a company is not just going to give me that. If you can get that question answered, it will help you a lot.
mclarenf3@reddit
Nothing stopping you and your team members from putting in a ticket for them.
Person comes to your desk, tell them you're just opening up a ticket and get all the details written down in there before getting up to help them. Same for a phone call.
If they catch you in the hallway, or other times you need to help them right away, help them out and open a ticket retroactively.
It'll be more work for your team, but it's also your team which will benefit the most when it comes to documentation, solution repository, and justification for additional resources.
Spitcat@reddit
This is never good advice, engineers will inevitably forgo creating tickets when over-worked as a result of users not needing to log tickets in the first place, you end with more admin than IT work and does not scale well at all.
a60v@reddit
Pet peeve: unless you are an athletic organization, you don't have "team members." You have employees.
How big is your organization? I can see this working fine in a smaller one and working very badly in a larger one. Users are justified in hating most ticketing systems, and there is overhead to ticket management that offers little or no benefit to anyone. I can't see it scaling beyond a hundred or so users, though.
An intermediate option would be to have your help desk employees fill out tickets for the users. That way, users don't waste their own time creating them, but there are still records of what needs to be done.
_haha_oh_wow_@reddit
"No ticket, no problem."
Math_comp-sci@reddit
When ever I'm not particularly busy and everyone else (not IT) is busy, the ticketing system stops being used. When ever I find I have to juggle multiple issues I start enforcing the ticketing system again. In a large organization I don't know how you are supposed to keep track of what needs to be done without a ticketing system.
Bendo410@reddit
Inmates don’t run the asylum.
boli99@reddit
This is often because the requests are outside of policy, or reveal bad habits or mistakes made by the user. They dont want a record of their mistakes, or possibly their deliberate policy violations. They don't want to reveal the thing they are ashamed of.
SiteRelEnby@reddit
Update my Resume.
BoltActionRifleman@reddit
Fight this to your last breath, OP! We’re currently transitioning away from the “Bother whoever you want, whenever you want, by whatever means necessary” culture that I inherited. You can’t get anything done when you’re administering something and Jan calls to have you help her attach a fucking PDF to an email because she somehow can’t grasp the concept.
bythepowerofboobs@reddit
I would set a meeting with the head of IT and voice your concerns. Ask them how they are getting metrics to judge your performance and the IT department's overall performance.
EEU884@reddit
raise your objections in writing then when it all falls to shit and they kick off then clap back with what you said to c-level people and take the head of ITs job then tell them no ticket no fix.
eggcountant@reddit
I would simply write an email to the ticketing system while on the call
bamaknight@reddit
I tell them if you never submitted a ticket for the fix it never happened. So I theory you could say well lets start over and get nothing done. Until they put in a ticket.
talexbatreddit@reddit
This really sounds like a recipe for disaster. If there are no tickets, how does anyone know if work is getting done? How do you answer the question "What has your team been working on?" If it's IT or software development, you have to have a ticketing system.
BigDowntownRobot@reddit
You continue to track the tickets anyway. You take the time to make the ticket when you get the invite. You still document it.
You demonstrate the reduced amount in clearances and point you the team is getting x% less done since the change, and it will result in delays. You start blocking out parts of your calendar to manage the backlog of work.
You do 0% additional work, which means you do less work. You make them feel the pain for it, and if they try to get you to feel it, you quit.
As usual if you are the USA your only choices are the quit, weaponize incompetence, or demonstrate statistics.
If they insist *you do not record tickets* tell them you won't do that because it will result in a hostile, disorganized, stressful work environment where everything comes someone memory vs someone else memory and make them fire you for "insubordination".
You submit for unemployment due to them summarily dismissing you after creating a hostile work environment.
GregryC1260@reddit
Saw it done. Descended into chaos. Compromise was "you can talk to folks about your issue but without a ticket they're doing no work" and a special (secret) SLA for VIPs.
It's only fair on the users who don't have special relationships with IT team members.
jakeod27@reddit
Meet halfway and start really using a bookings system.
Klenkogi@reddit
I See a lot of opportunities for malicious compliance
dedjedi@reddit
Now you don't have to do anything because nobody ever asks you for work! They may claim that you're wrong, but they have no proof.
phunky54@reddit
This sounds like a great way to have all the key IT members to look for another job. If users get to cherry pick the person they like the most, this will quickly devol e into those high value it to guys getting burned out and looking elsewhere. Dumb move for a number of reasons.
DaNoahLP@reddit
Dont stress yourself and enjoy the upsides until everything collapses because something that should have better got documented isnt documented.
cardinal1977@reddit
Malicious compliance!
They don't want to put on in themselves? Ok, show up with a laptop, start asking questions, and create the ticket as you go. Once every field is complete with the necessary detail, "now that we have all the information in the ticket and submit it to the queue, your ticket is 9th in the queue, someone will be along to work on this once the tickets ahead of you are completed." Let this take 30 minutes if need be. Include the time of documenting the ticket for the user in the ticket. Document everything. Just do it before you do the work.
When the complaints about how long things take start, remind everyone that IT could be making better use of their time and working on these issues instead of holding hands and creating the tickets for the users.
"We are happy to offer the personalized service you requested, but we still have to document the issues, and to be fair to everyone, as a team, we still have to work tickets in order of priority. If the extra wait created by the personalized service is too long, you are, of course, free to create your own tickets to free up the IT team's time to get the issues resolved quicker. We are happy to provide as quick or as detailed service as you prefer."
But I'm kind of a dick and I answer directly to the top dog. YMMV.
dare978devil@reddit
Tell them it will never work. Submitted tickets provide written explanations which can be researched by IT to formulate a response. Spoken issues do not allow IT to look up any relevant documentation ahead of time, nor do they allow other IT members to re-use the same solution for future requests.
Most things submitted to IT have already been submitted by someone else (including random people on the internet), a bit of googling will lead to the best response. Then IT can try it out in a test env before presenting the solution to the employee. None of that is possible with live meetings without any clue as to what the issue is about. Many IT have encyclopedic knowledge of problems and solutions, but no one knows everything. Document it, it allows time for research.
Sasataf12@reddit
I still think everything should be a ticket. What IT leadership is proposing doesn't stop that. Orgs that take support requests over the phone still loud everything as a ticket, so I don't see why you can't.
If it provides a better service for the user, then I don't see a reason why you shouldn't give it a go.
Max-_-Power@reddit
"What issue, where is it, never got it, maybe you are mistaken because there is no record of it". See how long that goes.
Other than that: if they insist on a 1:1 call I could certainly do that but the result will be a ticket no matter what.
It's IT support with extra steps.
LowTechBakudan@reddit
I would start looking for a new job. So how are they going to track metrics? I dealt with this some years ago where people were pushing back against having to submit a ticket. My team and I were inexperienced and said went along with it to make our end users happy. That bit us in the ass that year when I was trying to get more headcount in my department because we were stuck with majority of our day providing helpdesk support but couldn't do our main functions. We got so much pushback from our directors that there's no proof that we were drowning.
bgier@reddit
This makes my ITIL hurt.
Seranfall@reddit
Running anything more than a 10 person office with out using a ticketing systems seems like a bad idea to me.
Fabulous-Farmer7474@reddit
I've seen this happen where people hate the help desk system, revolt and demand direct access to support people but it has never worked out except in small departments where a support person is embedded and understands that unit's interests and requirements. VIPs and their associates always get dedicated support. Some units if they can afford it will do the same.
There are also users who should know more than they do and they want to conceal that by avoiding systems which might document just how much they use IT to bail them out.
Are tickets being routed correctly and staff being responsive OR are the requestors basically wanting to start full on projects which makes it hard for them to articulate that in a ticket?
I worked in a place where first level helpdesk was overwhelmed with questions about new technology being developed in the org yet they had no training on it so it was pretty bad all over.
stromm@reddit
I would leave that company as quickly as possible.
My malicious side would also start upping my non-it contact with those abusers in the same manner they expect to abuse me. Just show up at their desk to talk about something in their wheelhouse. Always pester the same person even when they aren’t an SME. Etc.
Then when confronted, just say “well this is what management is directing for IT so they must want it for all departments, right?”
Nerdlinger42@reddit
Sometimes you just have to let things fail.
jackoneilll@reddit
This sounds like a future post under malicious compliance.
cyberkine@reddit
Office hours by arrangement. Currently working a two week backlog. Appointments will become available as the backlog clears. Oh it's "urgent"? Go find a junior tech to work with.
Low_codedimsion@reddit
Our policy is simple: "no ticket, no problem." Since management needs data from the service platform, we have suppoort this rule. In fact, it was recently decided that unless a ticket is logged, an issue shouldn’t be resolved unless it's a security incident.
iwinsallthethings@reddit
First, don't let it stress you out. This isn't your problem to solve directly. Support will start to fail as people who are deemed "less" will get less support. There tends to be a huge gap in knowledge most of the time across the IT support org, people who have done it longer or have institutional knowledge; these people will likely be in more high demand than someone new to the helpdesk/support team.
You fix it by doing malicious compliance.
Eventually your calendar will fill up completely. You will end up having them book the issue far in advance. So much so that when Rachel comes back a few weeks later because her computer BSOD again, you are available to help in 4 or 5 days. She's going to be upset that you can't drop anything immediately but you'll need to explain that these other coworkers have been waiting for your time and you only have so many hours in a day.
When support starts to fail because Rachel and people like her can't get support for something mission critical, just explain that you are booked out because that is the process. When people who submit tickets complain that they haven't gotten help for days, just explain that the process also includes walkups/calls/direct scheduling and that may well be faster.
progenyofeniac@reddit
You should look at moving to my job. We’re one step away from being told not to work on anything if it ISN’T a ticket. CIO sends you a DM to do a thing? Ask him to submit a ticket.
Just gonna be clear, I find it almost equally as maddening as no tickets. I think it’s absurd to tie IT experts’ hands with arbitrary rules.
awnawkareninah@reddit
I've never heard of that. It's absolute suicide for anything resembling an SLA for the whole organization.
Having some white glove for the C suite sure that's normal.
I would be looking for jobs. In the meantime I would roll.
Hoosier_Farmer_@reddit
sort of? I treat those (usually only 'special' employees) as customers, write up the ticket and time on their behalf afterwards. If they want to pay me that much to be a secretary, that's fine.
Bigbesss@reddit
Around 95% of first liners I’ve worked with would see this as a way to do no work
whatdoido8383@reddit
If that's the way they want to run things, not your circus. If users get pissed off they can't get help, send them to your manager. The only way things change is if management gets flak from the user base.
No_District_1021@reddit
Sounds good to me. Require everyone to schedule an hour minimum meeting with me. You need a password reset, that’s an hour. You need a group change, that’s an hour.
Here is my calendar, book away.
JohnBeamon@reddit
This is a problem of scale. A support staff who services one person's problems, one problem at a time, is some kind of butler or administrative assistant. If you're expected to remember 27 different people with 3-6 problems apiece, it's going on post-it notes, which is a ticketing system. They can either use a ticketing system or hire 25 more IT support staff.
akp55@reddit
If you're getting them via slack you can use a bit to convert the message to a ticket I'm pretty sure. Not sure how it works, but I know it's been done like that at the past 3 places I've worked at
llDemonll@reddit
Let the end users drive every aspect of the “ticket” process
Submission and scheduling a meeting
Explaining all the info during the meeting
Scheduling a follow-up if the issue isn’t resolved in the first meeting
Explaining the issue in the second meeting
Only work tickets while you’re in the meetings, any time outside of the meetings you probably don’t have the mental capacity to keep all those tickets straight or remember who submitted what. You’re going to miss emails, don’t try to respond to them all or keep them straight.
ickarous@reddit
I would also like to know. When my new CTO joined suddenly users didn't have to submit requests and go through the proper channels. Asking users to submit a ticket became a scandal and a huge issue because we should just drop what we are doing to help everyone. It seems to be a change in mindset where the "inconvenience" of submitting a ticket has more of an impact than the benefits of proper documentation and accountability. I think these people have been told to keep staff approval high rather than keep things running smoothly and no matter how easy you make it to submit a ticket staff seem to always have a problem with it.
malikto44@reddit
This sounds like a dumpster fire waiting to happen.
I worked at a company that thought their ticket system just should be chucked, and everything done by email or "hey, got a sec?" in the halls. Everything went to hell fast, with users literally standing and looking at your screens demanding they do their tickets first for hours on end.
Thankfully the UNIX admins had a hidden room that connected the MDF to a loading dock. This room had its own A/C unit, bike rack, desks, fridge, and microwave. That is where I ended up quietly working at, otherwise, I'd have a line of people yelling at me and each other.
If it were not for that hidden room, I probably would have ragequit that place.
Kortok2012@reddit
I think I would just make it so I’m never the “preferred” technician ever again
statitica@reddit
Let it play out.
But write your objections and get them noted so it can't bite you on the arse later.
Bogus1989@reddit
😂 why do end users have your numbers, and why do you respond?
ARobertNotABob@reddit
A "Head of IT" that turns organisation & planning into a free-for-all against limited resources ?
That would be a non-IT, bean-counting fool.
Bogus1989@reddit
I dont have a desk number anymore….and when I did, and all my team members still do….the number that comes up for the users is the help desk number…
The answer to your problems is simple…
let it fail, forget about everything
how will you be able to track anything without tickets
TypewriterChaos@reddit
Head of IT needs to see numbers to know how chaotic this had made it. Response time, etc. We all know tickets give us time to theorize what an issue is and decide on a course of action before we ever touch a user's machine. Seing how frequently a ticket needs multiple attempts to fix, and how much more slowly tickets get responded to because you need to enter them manually may change their mind. Maybe make up a story about how a previous Head of IT you worked under got canned, because corporate saw a drastic decline in tickets and thought they didn't need a head of IT, and began shifting to outsourced services.
TxTechnician@reddit
If it's gotten to those point, I'm guessing your ticketing system sucks.
It's probably cumbersome and it makes it to where end users have to put in a lot of unnecessary information or find info that they don't know.
Did I guess correct?
joshg678@reddit
Malicious Compliance. Have the meeting. Send out meeting minutes. Action items: user will submit ticket with details of the problem so it can be resolved.
Recent_Ad2667@reddit
Just hire a temp to take those calls and enter tickets. Accounting will fix that problem for you... : )
Corgilicious@reddit
We have a robust support desk with a great ticketing system. Sometimes business partners still reach out directly to me, so I help them as I can in that moment, even if that just means thank you for your request, I have put in a ticket for this so that we can track and prioritize the work.
AtlanticPortal@reddit
GTFO
Just GTFO.
Doctorphate@reddit
Oh this is fun. Well this is called a ticket to do whatever the hell you want and just pretend you were busy because there is nothing to track activity or provide metrics.
No-Yam-1231@reddit
You're describing my workplace, though it works here as we are a 3 person team, 2 techs and a developer, so it isn't hard to keep track of. If someone calls and I don't answer, they can either wait or call the other tech.
big_steak@reddit
Malicious compliance time.
dosman33@reddit
You're no longer IT, you are a concierge service.
twiddle_dee@reddit
Honestly, for a lot of my tickets I'd prefer this. At least 50% of our tickets include such little information that it takes 30 minutes to try and decipher the real issue. Or three days of back and forth emails through the ticketing system. A 5 minute phone call would be faster and more informative.
lectos1977@reddit
Yes, my org started all face to face. The org has to fix the org. You have to have buy in from management /HR to enforce the policy and do disciplinary action against any violations. If the org will not change, all you can do is do a ticket anytime someone speaks to you and triage it. They may not be happy with the time frames so that is when you talk about how it would be easier if they did the ticket rather than waste your time. I fired several staff in other departments for repeated policy violations and it all evened out for me. Everyone hates me, but that is fine.
Zombie-ie-ie@reddit
I don’t work for free. If it’s not in a ticket it never happened.
dude_named_will@reddit
While I can see the motivation behind this, the problem is triage. Even something as simple as knowing "my email isn't working" can tell me whether I need to engage with them as soon as possible or prioritize it later. This is effectively prioritizing time for every issue.
Icy_Conference9095@reddit
I have seen it regress, but that was related to our tier 1 support missing some much needed training, and some specific tier 2 support who were essentially useless.
Honky_Town@reddit
This be heaven! I would be going full IT crowd. Speak to Mr Phonebot. Did you try to turn it o and off? Thank you bye.
Id be hiding in the basement sleeping all day... i meant paching the apache because of vulnerabilities. User support? Yeah man you know the new system is fucked up it makes me so much more work we may need 2 more People here...
-Copenhagen@reddit
Just log the request in a ticket and assign it to an agent who has time.
It's not hard.
JJHall_ID@reddit
It's time for malicious compliance. If you're busy and you get a request, just ignore it until you have time to get to it. Don't reply back with an ETA, don't forward it to a different person. If someone grabs you on the way to the restroom, "Hey, I'm working on something else right now, would you mind asking me later?" Occasionally "forget" to get back to people. "Oh, sorry, without it being in our ticket system it gets really hard to keep track of who I've talked to and who I haven't. I'll get to you as soon as I can." Don't put out-of-office autoresponders on your email or chat. If you're gone for a week of vacation, let the user wait or call someone else. Let some just fall through the crack and claim you didn't get the request.
End users just don't understand that the ticket system is there to help them as much or more than the IT department. It makes sure their requests don't get lost even if it's a super low priority in the middle of a shitstorm.
Honestly, if upper management has approved this, it makes me wonder if they're looking to outsource IT. Right now you have a great system that generates reports of how busy you are. If work is no longer tracked in a central system, "IT sure doesn't seem very busy." I would make sure when your team performs work that you still enter tickets in for it. Maybe turn off the user e-mails so that they don't get responses or notifications, but that way there's still a central record of work performed by everyone.
Pretend-Weird26@reddit
Used to work at a privately owned bank. There was IT, then Executive IT, basically for the family. That was the way they worked. Requests flowed from that group, all Sev 1's (wink wink) and there were no tickets until after the request had been satisfied. That said all the paychecks came out of the family's pocket, so it was fine. We got seized in 2008 and that group got their throats cut in the first wave.
If it is privately owned, small and insanely profitable have fun. Costs will go way up. I would still have the tech's open tickets. to track multiday jobs and someone needs to take over a priority ticket.
saysjuan@reddit
How much of your week do you spend on these tickets?
evenmore2@reddit
Face to face and over the phone?
Sounds like it's all just "advice". Time to Cruze.
EldritchKoala@reddit
I've seen it once in my career. Lasted about a year. The support turnover churn got so bad, at one point hundreds of back logged requests vs. the last 2 guys standing because they hadn't gotten new job offers or wanted to 'stick it out'. IT Leadership got fired, consultancy came in and basically put everything back to the way it was telling the business "You had it right. Stop trying to be special."
cty_hntr@reddit
Do they want to measure metrics? Are you gauged by performance? Face to face meetings, how do you account for your time?
jimicus@reddit
We all know what's going to happen next; I won't belabour the point here.
Personally, I'd be doing two things:
With any luck, the head of IT will get some sense knocked into him when he's inevitably summoned to a meeting without coffee to explain why departments are blaming IT for not doing any work - and he can't prove whether or not they're bullshitting.
dirtymatt@reddit
Business issues I can think of right off the top of my head:
If creating a ticket is really too burdensome, then the process of creating tickets should be looked at, but tickets should not be abandoned.
biffbobfred@reddit
Also, you can have instructions in the tickets showing how to fix things. Andy fixes something. Andy goes on vacation. Same issue happens. Bob can read it and fix it.
dirtymatt@reddit
This too! Can't tell you how many times I've had "this issue sounds really familiar moments" where a quick search in the ticketing system saved hours of work.
EmotionOpening4095@reddit
But, but I get paid by the resolve ticket.
/s
WolfOfAsgaard@reddit
My last org tried something like that. (Users scheduling their support sessions.) It did not last a single quarter before management abandoned it.
It was total chaos. Good techs were swamped. Inept ones had clear schedules. Prioritizing incidents was impossible, etc.
Your version sounds even worse. At least mine was implemented through ServiceNow. Your IT dept won't even be able to find ticket trends, so root causes will never be discovered.
reol7x@reddit
I guess in theory, you could do the malicious compliance route.
Sure you can add an IT resource to any meeting -but- setup rules to automatically reject any meetings that would result in conflict.
Start scheduling all ticketed work on the calendars...when they can't book a face to face for 3 months....shocked Pikachu.
homelaberator@reddit
Go back to fundamentals and figure out what problem/s ticketing was fixing. If the new system isn't addressing those, then they are likely to return. The business might accept those problems if they see a bigger benefit from the new system. Or there might be alternative ways to address those problems.
There might also be some "malicious compliance" happening at a more senior level that you aren't privy to. Which might be fun.
robbzilla@reddit
If your head if IT isn't supporting a sane ticketing system, it's time to move on.
kona420@reddit
Yeah this is bad. First thing to do is to make sure everyone is turning in tickets on the behalf of the users so you can at least document the workload.
ballzsweat@reddit
Who’s your leader? Any IT experience? It’s not going to work long term. The culture that mandated this change is not one I would want to be a part of. I would move on!
Foxinthetree@reddit
How would I deal with it? I’d start looking for another job. If leadership—including IT—won’t support proper ticketing procedures and you can’t change their minds, then there’s nothing more to say. That’s not a place I’d want to stay.
I’ve 100% had admins try to hand me spreadsheets of issues before. Each time, it led to a mess of extra work and wild goose chases. One case was because the ticket system had problems at a remote site. The other? Just something dumb.
ninjaluvr@reddit
Data driven decision making is key to the success of any organization, IT or not. Having data and KPIs is the only way to measure the effectiveness and maturity of IT operations teams. Without tickets and KPIs around them (MTTR, velocity, volume, customer satisfaction, etc.) there is no way to effectively manage the team nor the organization.
xDroneytea@reddit
I'd reverse it ASAP if I'm in a management role. Firstly from a process and documentation standpoint, and to also protect my staff from burnout since an unequal workload can quickly develop this way.
If I wasn't in that role, I'd quite clearly voice concerns and with reasons why. If it's not considered or acknowledged then I'd look elsewhere for a job. If there was a biblical commandments of sysadmins I'm pretty sure everything must be sent via a ticket would be one of them. So I'd be concerned about what other decisions the business would make to the detriment of IT in the future.
biffbobfred@reddit
This smells to me like some bigwig/BSD doesn’t like tickets so the entire firm is gonna regress. Yikes.
ContributionSea8300@reddit
I would tell them the reason we have user put in tickets it to track and document issues. If the IT team doesn't have that then we can't keep track of all troubleshooting that has been done for certain issues and can't fine patterns of constant issue with either software or hardware. the only compromise would be that your team can try to send the same tech, but can't guarantee it.
biffbobfred@reddit
You have an autocorrecto fine/find
tristand666@reddit
I guess I am missing a lot of requests since we stopped using the ticket system. I have no way to track them.
Megafiend@reddit
I'd assume IT leadership are incompetent.
Jeff-J777@reddit
I say let them and let them all fall on their own sword.
When person A get a crap load of requests it will suck for that person. But say everyone wants person A. Person A becomes booked. Maybe people start having to wait days for support. It starts impacting their work their manager get mad and now they must schedule time with someone else.
Or say person As 10 o'clock runs long and now the 11 o'clock has to be rescheduled.
Or say person B is booked all day and then get sick. Are all those people going to wait days for person B to get better then reschedule with person B to fix their issue.
There are soooo many scenarios where I see this going so wrong. But if that is what the company wants then let them feel their own pain.
But I don't see why tickets still can't be a thing. No reason IT can't put tickets in themselves on behalf of the end user. Just schedule a 5 minute block right after the schedule time with the end user.
FreeAnss@reddit
Cool so shit os scattered everywhere? A conversation in the hallway? I forgot that. Man you shoulda wrote it down where I keep my tasks
Playful_Tie_5323@reddit
I simply would refuse to work under those constraints - How are you supposed to organise anything if someone just wanders in and asks you to sort their issue? There needs to be some semblance of order to things and a ticketing system is such a basic concept of ANY decent IT dept.
Dust of the CV and start looking for a new job as your current one is heading for disaster.
illicITparameters@reddit
I wouldn’t, I would leave. Same with orgs who dont see a need for change management.
ludlology@reddit
if you’re not running the IT department and can’t change this but are forced to deal with the consequences, there’s nothing you can do. document everything in the meantime by emailing everyone every time, and polish your resume. time to find a new gig.
MistyAmber916@reddit
I mean if a few of you it guys get together you can make this shit stop real fast LOL 😅
It might involve some pettiness but you can make this process break down fast if you want to
mrbiggbrain@reddit
From an IT perspective everything needs to be a ticket, for tracking, collaboration, later research, etc. But that does not mean that the way an employee interfaces with the process needs to be with the ticket directly.
Think of it this way, there are lots of vendors that you can call in IT to get help, be it hardware or software. When you call them the first thing they will do is often enter a ticket.
Take the call, enter the ticket. Is this as efficient? No, but sometimes companies want this level of white glove service. I have been at companies who had an entire person who's entire job is to take these calls and triage them to teams.
--Chemical-Dingo--@reddit
Start looking for a new job. That sounds awful.
2002RSXTypeS@reddit
Turn off a production server by "accident".
Resident-Olive-5775@reddit
Tbh, that’s how it used to be at my company. Unfortunately you have to be the bug in your managers ear and make sure they know “hey, this shit isn’t working because nobody is submitting tickets. Tickets are more efficient and traceable.” Change will be slow, but it’ll be worth it.
brispower@reddit
you should adopt a surprised Pikachu face, inconsistency in relation to tickets is the only consistency in IT.
Plopaplopa@reddit
It sounds very strange to me. I'm junior but I never see that before.