More features, wrong reasons

by | Sep 6, 2021

When it comes to service management tools, more features means better. Simply because more features provide more options and the freedom to use the tools the way you want. Sounds simple, so what is the issue here?

Let’s further explore this idea with a simple example, the Inbox feature of 4me. The main purpose of the Inbox is to provide a specialist with an easy to use overview of all the assignments that are waiting for an action from this individual. Assignments are ordered based on their targets so what needs to be dealt with first appears on the top of the Inbox. Easy to understand and very effective.

This approach however requires that a service organization is able to determine targets for all assignments. In any sensible service management tool this is determined by SLAs when it concerns incidents and careful planning when it concerns other assignments like tasks, changes and problems. As a customer you would expect that your service organization is at least able to plan their work according to the importance of this work for the customer(s).

The reality is that many service organizations struggle a lot in this area. SLAs are non-existent or are the same for each service and each customer. Or even worse, the customer can decide what is important by selecting an arbitrary urgency level in the request. Of course everyone selects the highest level by default which doesn’t help either. This basically means that all assignments are handled on a ‘first in – first out’ basis, often not what the customer expects or needs.

So when we do not have enough control over the correct targeting of the assignments, the functionality of the Inbox feels limiting. We need more ‘freedom’ so we ask the vendor for more flexibility like changing the sort order, marking individual assignments as urgent, filtering, custom columns etc. With the result that each specialist decides his / her own priorities, just like in the old days.

When you have your basics in place you often need less features, not more”

The main takeaway of this story is that when you have your basics in place you often need less features, not more. Of course there will be cases where a new feature would be very helpful and a sensible vendor will always be open for suggestions and improvements. But at the same time, a sensible service organization should also be willing to take a look inside to determine why it needs all those extra features. It is often a clear indication that something else should be taken care off first.


Related articles

SIAM made simple: an introduction

SIAM made simple: an introduction

If you search on Wikipedia for Service Integration and Management you will find a page that starts with a warning: this article appears to contain a large number of buzzwords. Touché. SIAM has become the favourite subject of analysts, consultants and other people who...

10 frequently asked questions about KCS

10 frequently asked questions about KCS

KCS is a methodology that vastly improves your knowledge management results. In this blog, we answer 10 frequently asked questions about Knowledge Centered Service (KCS). Do you have a question about KCS that is not listed here? . Just contact us, we're happy to help!

The CMDB is overrated

The CMDB is overrated

It is a known 'fact' that you need a Configuration Management Database (CMDB) to be successful in IT Service Management. After all it is nicknamed as ‘The Single Source of Truth’ for a reason. Yes, it takes a lot of effort to set it up and maintain but in the end it...