<div dir="ltr">Hi,<div><br></div><div>We're using RT in an ITIL kinda way.</div><div><br></div><div>Basics are:</div><div><br></div><div style>- Setup the queue's the way you like, we've done it in a manner where 1 queue represents 1 department (e.g. servicedesk, sysadmin, testers, developers, etc.)</div>
<div>- Use a Custom Fields for setting a ticket type (incident, problem, change, etc.)</div><div style>- If required add another CF for the impact (high, middle, low)</div><div>- Install the SLA extension</div><div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">If you go further then you can add scrips which automatically set your SLA based on e.g. ticket type (incident/problem/change) + priority (1,2,3,4). Or similar based on ticket type, impact and priority.<br>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>In addition you can choose to use the Articles feature as a knowledge base or for standard replies. (known errors, known solutions, etc.). As for known errors, you could create a ticket type for that, or a checkbox simply saying yes/no for each ticket (with a CF).</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>Also, you might want to adjust the default lifecycle (or create a new one) with status values that suite your needs. We've added a few valies stating a call is now waiting on a customer, or on a supplier.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>As you can see, this part is quite flexible so you'll want to take a piece of paper and draw a few things before actually looking into the "how" in RT.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>As for us, we use an external tool for making reports out of RT (they are being developed using Splunk atm). For the purpose of making reporting on SLA's we've added a few (for the user invisible) custom fields (1 for each status) which we use for registering the amount of minutes a ticket stays in one status (done using cron + scripts in the backend using the RT API, updated every 5 minutes).</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>For example, if a ticket is on status open for 10 minutes, then waiting for supplier 600 minutes, then back to open again for 15 minutes, then these CF's will show a ticket has been on status open for 25 minutes, and on status "waiting on supplier" for 600 minutes. This makes SLA reporting quite easy + we have the ability to quickly see why a ticket is going passed it's allowed SLA (e.g. it takes ages for our supplier to actually do something).</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>As for the asset management, we chose to initially use RT for registering and reporting on incoming calls. Which means that we've created CF's (Item A, Item B and Item C) which show an hierarchy of items but mostly aimed at products (globally) and problems (e.g. lost passwords).</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>Asset management on it's own is something that we do in a different system. However, I've been told that RT will come with a feature called "Assets" with version 4.2. Which looks a little like the Articles feature a.t.m. This could mean that you could do some asset management within RT using that version. Not sure how extensive it will be, we're waiting for the first RC for version 4.2 since we'd love to have this in RT as well.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>------</div><div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>Well, maybe not so basic as I read what I wrote haha but I hope this gives you some ideas on how to implement RT in an ITIL process.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>Best regards.</div><div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>-- Bart G.</div><div class="gmail_extra" style>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2013/4/3 Lisa Tomalty <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ltomalty@uwaterloo.ca" target="_blank">ltomalty@uwaterloo.ca</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Thanks Tim....<br>
<br>
...we are investigating right now and want to hear if people see RT meeting the needs of the main service operations processes and linking with SLAs, Asset mgmt., chg mgmt., etc ....<br>
<div class="im"><br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Lisa Tomalty<br>
Information Systems & Technology/Arts Computing Office<br>
<br>
</div><div class="im">University of Waterloo<br>
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada<br>
</div>MC2052/PAS2023<br>
(519) 888-4567 X35873<br>
<a href="mailto:ltomalty@uwaterloo.ca">ltomalty@uwaterloo.ca</a><br>
<div class=""><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Tim Cutts [mailto:<a href="mailto:tjrc@sanger.ac.uk">tjrc@sanger.ac.uk</a>]<br>
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 12:24 PM<br>
To: Lisa Tomalty<br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:rt-users@lists.bestpractical.com">rt-users@lists.bestpractical.com</a><br>
Subject: Re: [rt-users] RT4 and ITIL<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2 Apr 2013, at 16:35, Lisa Tomalty <<a href="mailto:ltomalty@uwaterloo.ca">ltomalty@uwaterloo.ca</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> HI all<br>
><br>
> If you have used RT4 with ITIL service operations processes (and/or other ITIL processes such as change management), can you send me an email to discuss?<br>
<br>
Yes, keep it on list, please - I'm interested in this.<br>
<br>
I've had a few ideas (adding another "closed" status beyond "resolved", maintaining separate service request, incident and problem queues with different lifecycles so that incidents can't become problems) and so on. RTFM is sort of a Known Error Database. However, RT's Owner model doesn't quite fit with a strict ITIL service desk idea of the ticket owner remaining in the Service Desk, even though the person actually working on resolving the problem might be somewhere else, although you'd conceivably do that with child tickets in other queues. Alternatively, the ITIL Incident Owner could be the RT Ticket AdminCc, perhaps?<br>
<br>
I'd be interested in hearing any discussion people have about it.<br>
<br>
Tim<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute is operated by Genome Research Limited, a charity registered in England with number 1021457 and a company registered in England with number 2742969, whose registered office is 215 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BE.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>