Performance Quality Scorecard_v7

Help Desk Technician:
Reviewer:
Review Date:
Measurement Rating %
1
First Call Resolution
(FCR)
0
2
Customer Satisfaction
Rating (CSR)
0
3 Ticket Quality (TQ) 0 0.0%
4 Phone Efficiency (PE) 0 0.0%
5
Knowledge
Documentation
0 0.0%
Combined Score 0.0 0.0%
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM:
Fill in the technician's first & last name, your name (as reviewer) and month & year (mmm yyyy) of the month being reviewed.
1 Add the FCR percentage to cell D11. The number is obtained using the Enterprise First Call Resolution SLA report in ServiceNOW.
2 Add the CSR percentage to cell D12. The number is obtained using the EnterpriseService Desk Survey Results ‐ Team report in ServiceNOW.
3‐5 The following 3 sections will auto populate from the separate feedback forms (tabs) in this workbook.
The comments/notes section is freeform to add recommendations for development or feedback for a job well done.
Unacceptable
Comments/Notes
Technician Scorecard

Ticket Quality Feedback Form
Help Desk Technician: 0
Reviewer:
Review Date:
Ticket Definitions:
Incident ‐ unplanned interruption, or reduction in the quality of an IT Service
Priority is calculated from Impact & Urgency (Impact = number users affected, Urgency = how quickly fix is needed).
Criticality 1 is 4Hr Response (User Down, No Workaround), Criticality 2 is 25Hr Response (User has Workaround)
1. 2. 3.
Ticket # YES NO N/A Ticket # YES NO N/A Ticket # YES NO N/A Ticket # Comments
FALSE FALSE 0 FALSE FALSE 0 FALSE FALSE
Percenta0% Percenta0% Percentage 0%
4. 5. 6.
0
Ticket # YES NO N/A Ticket # YES NO N/A Ticket # YES NO N/A
0 FALSE FALSE 0 FALSE FALSE 0 FALSE FALSE
7. 8. 9.
Ticket # YES NO N/A Ticket # YES NO N/A Ticket # YES NO N/A
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM
Select 10 random Incident tickets for a single technician from the ServiceNow ticketing system.
Type in a single ticket number in each row of the first box (#1) above.
Select YES if the answer to the question is true, NO if the answer is false, or N/A if it doesn't apply.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Comments from reviewer. These should be utilized to improve job performance.Was ticket logged using the proper
ticket type (INC vs. REQ)?
Does the ticket contain the proper
Catetory & Subcategory?
Does the ticket contain an accurate
Priority based on Impact and
Urgency?
0
Was the proper CI used or, where
applicable, the SD contain SLA
keywords (i.e. Drive Mapping)?
Do Work Notes contain Discovery
detail (testing, diagnosis) or
describe work performed?
If escalating to Desktop, does the
ticket contain the proper Criticality
(1=4hrs/2=25hrs)?
January 1900
0
Does the Short Description clearly
identify the incident being reported?
Does the Description describe the
symptoms or offer more detail about
the customer experience?
If ticket closed by a Service Desk
technician, is the Assignment Group
correct?
Confidential Page 2 of 4 Created: July 2011

Phone Efficiency Feedback Form
Reviewer:
Review Date:
HEAT Ticket#
YES NO N/A
1 FALSE FALSE
2 FALSE FALSE
3
FALSE FALSE
4
5
6
7
8
9
FALSE FALSE
10
FALSE FALSE
You may monitor more than one call for a selected technician. Select a call based on amount of interaction involved.
(Ex. Customer calling for password reset requires the least amount of interaction, so select a different call)
Enter the corresponding ticket number for this call.
Answer questions 1‐3 & 9‐10 with YES if the technician met the condition, NO if they did not, or N/A if it does not apply (i.e. for #3, the
request may not apply to the machine, login, or network path, such as wanting to know how to do something in Word).
Answer questions 4‐8 using a scale of lowest (1) to highest (4).
1 = Unacceptable (Ex. They don't perform, do less than desired, or come across as rude to customer)
2 = Marginal (they fulfill most requirements but quality of work is still poor)
3 = Good (they fulfill all minimum requirements, quality of work is acceptable)
4 = Excellent (they go above/beyond to make the customer's experience very positive)
Did the technician close the call properly?
(Offer further assistance, "Thank customer for calling…")
Did the technician give a recap of helpdesk information?
(ticket number, referral information)
How thorough was the technician's basic troubleshooting?
(Discovery, Diagnosis, Testing, Treatment! If technician remotely controled PC to fix issue, mark N/A.)
Did the technician obtain login ID, machine name, network path, port #, etc. for follow‐up?
(If known, this info may be added to ticket without questioning customer but will be verified for scoring.)
How effective was the technician's communication skills?
(actively listening, remain objective, maintain control, ask clarifying questions, paraphrase)
How effective was the technician in speaking at an appropriate technical level to maximize
customer understanding?
(use of technical jargon, not talking too far above or below comprehension)
How effective was the technician in setting the customer's expectations?
(i.e. Desktop 1st ctc = 4 business hours. Criticality 1 = 4 hours to resolve.)
(If ticket is closed on first contact, mark N/A)
How courteous and professional was the technician with the customer?
(i.e. using the customer's name throughout the call)
Was the phone call answered with proper greeting?
"Enterprise Service Desk, this is ‐‐‐, how may I help you?"
0
January 1900
Did the technician verify customer contact information?
("Joe, are you still located in bldg ___, cubicle ___? Will we be able to reach you at ext. 1‐2345?") ‐or‐
("Sue, I see by the caller ID that your ext. is 1‐2345, is that correct? And are you still in bldg ___, room___?")
Confidential Page 3 of 4 Created: July 2011

Reviewer:
Review Date:
Article Title:
YES NO N/A
1 FALSE FALSE
2 FALSE FALSE
3
FALSE FALSE
4
5
6
7
8
Enter the title (and path) of FLS article being reviewed.
Answer questions 1‐3 with YES if the technician met the condition, NO if they did not, or N/A if it does not apply (i.e. for #3, the
article may not have a reference, link, or appropriate keywords).
Answer questions 4‐8 using a scale of lowest (1) to highest (4).
1 = Unacceptable (Ex. They don't perform task or quality if very poor/unacceptable)
2 = Marginal (they fulfill all/most of the requirements, but quality is still poor)
3 = Good (they fulfill minimum requirements for a quality article)
4 = Excellent (the written article is clear, concise, easy to understand and follow)
How direct and clear is the title (Short Description) of the article, using keywords?
(ex, "How to Print Using Word" or "Fix for Common Issues in BisonConnect" etc.)
If the article is a Known Error, how well does the Symptom answer the question, "What is the
customer experiencing?"
(If article is not a known error, mark answer N/A.)
If the article is a Known Error, how well does the Cause answer the question, "Why does the
symptom occur, what makes 'it' happen?"
(If article is not a known error, mark answer N/A)
If the article is a Known Error, how well written is the Resolution?
(clear, easy to follow, contains step‐by‐step instructions)
(If article is not a known error, mark answer as N/A)
How clear and concise is the article written?
(easy to understand, direct, easy to follow instructions)
Was the article given the proper Category to align with the IT Service Catalog?
(ex, Hardware, Network Services, Security, User Management, Web Services, etc.)
0
January 1900
Was a Knowledge article completed this month?
(If no article was completed, all remaining answers are null)
Was the proper Topic selected to indicate the type of article?
(ex, FAQ, Instruction, Job Aid, Known Error, SOP, Triage, etc.)

Performance Quality Scorecard_v7

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Performance Quality Scorecard_v7

Ähnlich wie Performance Quality Scorecard_v7 (20)

Performance Quality Scorecard_v7