Good question, let me clarify. 2 out of 4 implementations have required variations of categorization to be required. Primarily because categorization combinations, as we all probably know, drive so many other features in the tool: assignment, templates, other menu options, etc.
One client chose not to require these for problem at all, and they both have chosen to require at least 2 levels of operation and product on submit of incidents. The business need for both of clients was not only to ensure more effective reporting, but also to better control assignment routing. The resolution categorization was deemed important as that is used to feed solutions and known errors to for use in self help. Hope that is more helpful - thanks! -----Original Message----- From: Carey Matthew Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 1:45 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Optional Categorization for Incident Management 7 Lisa, Would that be "2 out of 2" accounts or "2 out of 100"? It can be difficult to understand such an apparently arbitrary value without some context. Maybe the topic/question should be more along the lines of... Can anyone identify any good reasons for the fields to be optional at all phases? Can anyone identify any good reasons for the fields to NOT be optional at all phases? I often find that the concept of categorization is often used as a crutch for several other things: ) relationships to services or other business centric thinking ) poor man's trouble shooting techniques ) "clues left behind" for reporting later ) problem identification (We had how many of those yesterday?) (and other such IM or PM tasks) -- Carey Matthew Black Remedy Skilled Professional (RSP) ARS = Action Request System(Remedy) Love, then teach Solution = People + Process + Tools Fast, Accurate, Cheap.... Pick two. On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Lisa Westerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have made them required for 2 accounts to date. Operational and product at > submit, and resolution categories upon resolve. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Legters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 11:05 AM > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Optional Categorization for Incident Management 7 > > We've been live on ITSM 7 for about a month, and I'm realizing we have > an Issue. Since the Categorizations on the Classification tab are > optional, the vast majority of folks creating new incidents are opting > out of making choices here. Probably two-thirds of the Incidents logged > last week have no categorization. This makes for very bad reporting. I > had assumed the OTB workflow would cause these to be required at some > point, but I'm discovering that's not the case. > > > > So, I'm curious - how have other folks dealt with this issue? > > > > Thanks, > Ron Legters > Tools Administrator > Data & Systems Services > Univar USA Inc. > 425.889.3952 Office > 425.889.4111 Fax > www.univarusa.com _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" ###################################################################### Attention: This e-mail message is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient please delete the message and notify the sender. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author. This email was scanned and cleared by MailMarshal. ###################################################################### _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
