I currently have a great problem with this same situation. And the solution the curstomer is requiring to me is very complex:
- The pending status must send a notification to key users. - If those key users have 4 hours to review the case, and if not correct they can deny the pending status. That means that the incident returns to assigned state and the time spent at pending is considered for the SVT measurement. - If pending status goes more than 4 hores and a key user says it's not correct, the SVT measurement only considers 4 hours and the rest is not considered for the measurement. - If pending status is accepted or the key users don't say anything, the time of pending is not considered. I saw a lot of customization and we are discussing with the customer an alternative method. Currently the most probable solution is to include in the SLA (the document, not the Remedy request) a penalty for abusing of the pending status. If pending status is used for other situations not expressed on the agreement, an extra penalty can be applied. At the end it's all about a problem of trusting. So if you can restore the confidence, you solve the problem. The new penalty at the SLA seems that will be the tool to restore the confidence. Saludos, Jose Manuel Huerta http://theremedyforit.com/ On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Jiri Pospisil < [email protected]> wrote: > g status only to managers, requiring manager approval before moving to > Pending status, automatically removing from Pending status after certain > period of time etc. etc. This is just a sample of what I can think of.**** > > ** ** > > Would like to hear other people’s experience/suggestions. > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
