[rt-users] RT4 and ITIL

Bart bart at pleh.info
Thu Apr 4 05:29:59 EDT 2013


We're using RT in an ITIL kinda way.

Basics are:

- 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.)
- Use a Custom Fields for setting a ticket type (incident, problem, change,
- If required add another CF for the impact (high, middle, low)
- Install the SLA extension

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).

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

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).

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.


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.

Best regards.

-- Bart G.

2013/4/3 Lisa Tomalty <ltomalty at uwaterloo.ca>

> Thanks Tim....
> ...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 ....
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Lisa Tomalty
> Information Systems & Technology/Arts Computing Office
> University of Waterloo
> Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
> MC2052/PAS2023
> (519) 888-4567 X35873
> ltomalty at uwaterloo.ca
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Cutts [mailto:tjrc at sanger.ac.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 12:24 PM
> To: Lisa Tomalty
> Cc: rt-users at lists.bestpractical.com
> Subject: Re: [rt-users] RT4 and ITIL
> On 2 Apr 2013, at 16:35, Lisa Tomalty <ltomalty at uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> > HI all
> >
> > 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?
> Yes, keep it on list, please - I'm interested in this.
> 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?
> I'd be interested in hearing any discussion people have about it.
> Tim
> --
>  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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bestpractical.com/pipermail/rt-users/attachments/20130404/91cc357b/attachment.htm>

More information about the rt-users mailing list