Symbol white

← Back to other Sirportly suggestions

Create a new linked ticket from any ticket update

908f144b7609574bf8063919f61d79af?rating=pg&size=52&default=mm
suggested by Ville M
5

One of our customer, recently started to use Sirportly as their customer suppor tool, gave the following idea:
 
It would be useful if an agent could create a new ticket from any part of the discussion. This resembles closely the split ticket, but the discussion would stay intact in the original ticket. Instead, a private update would be added to the original ticket with a direct link to the new one.
 
The use case for this feature is that the customers will send a complaint about a product. From here, two parallel processes are started: one to settle the situation with the product supplier another to communicate with the customer. Currently the agent will copy-paste the complaint into a new ticket (where the supplier is the contact) and manually add private references between these two tickets. In this way, when the supplier has responded to the complaint, the handling staff member can further communicate the decision to the customer. The supplier's ticket may also further be processed by another department (the warehouse etc) where the checkbox list for example is an excellent tool to follow the process.
 
- Ville

Collecting We're collecting votes & feedback about this suggestion!

Comments (8)

  • Forking a ticket to create a new ticket for a contractor/supplier would be very useful.
     
    If different users are to be assigned to the complainant and the contractor, one possibility would be -
    Create a new attribute on tickets which, when set on a complaint ticket, raises a new ticket to send to a contractor.
    Default ticket content could be from complaint ticket.***
    The original user would then assign the contractor ticket to the other user.
    The contractor email address is added and the default content can be edited before sending.
    When a suitable reply is received from the contractor, e.g. offering a date to fix the problem, it would be useful to notify the user that's assigned to the complaint ticket - this could just be done by re-assigning the contractor ticket to the user who is dealing with the complainant. When the complainant has agreed to the date, the contractor ticket can be assigned back with a private note.
    ** In our use cases, the content of the initial ticket raised by the complainant is often not suitable for sending to a contractor. We usually have to ask for clarification and this may result in several posts before it becomes clear. The user who is dealing with this might summarise what's required and send to the complainant, or enter as a private note on the complainant's ticket. In that case, we would want the last post or private note to be copied to the contractor ticket when the fork takes place.
     
    It's slightly simpler if the same user deals with complainant and contractor, but forking the ticket would still be useful.
     
    There might be a way to do this with a clever interlinked checklist, but checklists are currently pretty dumb.

    Fa60b6b33476c87eaa98a9d1400a99d2?rating=pg&size=52&default=mm
    posted by George G
  • This is very much what happens only with the client's account I am working with. I discussed with their head of customer support and they gave a nice idea about ability to also see forked discussions all on one page. Some of the discussion is done with the contractor ticket, some other with the customer ticket, but the discussion could also be viewed all at once. However, this UI enchancement is just an idea. ;)
     
    I'd see that just simple forking would be already an excellent step, the second would be cross-notifications between tickets (when a contractor's ticket is closed, the customer's ticket could be re-opened and the customer representative noticed).

    908f144b7609574bf8063919f61d79af?rating=pg&size=52&default=mm
    posted by Ville M
  • This suggestion and the forward to any email suggestion seem to be different manifestations of the same idea ... or have I missed something?
     
    In any event, +1 from me, too.

    posted by Unknown User
  • I posted them a little bit different use case in my mind. Forwarding would just simply forward the ticket / comment, without actually starting a new discussion and possible replies would be routed as new tickets. However, forking a ticket (the use case in this thread) would open a new discussion and a ticket.

    908f144b7609574bf8063919f61d79af?rating=pg&size=52&default=mm
    posted by Ville M
  • This is very much what happens only with the client's account I am working with. I discussed with their head of customer support and they gave a nice idea about ability to also see forked discussions all on one page. Some of the discussion is done with the contractor ticket, some other with the customer ticket, but the discussion could also be viewed all at once. However, this UI enchancement is just an idea. ;)
     
    I'd see that just simple forking would be already an excellent step, the second would be cross-notifications between tickets (when a contractor's ticket is closed, the customer's ticket could be re-opened and the customer representative noticed).
    Viewing both tickets on one page is an excellent idea, and would be a great selling point for Sirportly. I can see it being useful for training purposes, and for tickets where one user may need input from another. Currently this might be done by re-assigning a ticket, but forking to the other user would be very powerful - especially with the 2 tickets in view for both users.

    Fa60b6b33476c87eaa98a9d1400a99d2?rating=pg&size=52&default=mm
    posted by George G
  • +1

    Dff5bb231ef52094d217f1c1440371a6?rating=pg&size=52&default=mm
    posted by Andrew T
  • +1

    posted by Unknown User
  • Is there any updates regarding this feature after 6 months? Not only forwarding but forking discussion would be extremely useful in many cases!

    908f144b7609574bf8063919f61d79af?rating=pg&size=52&default=mm
    posted by Ville M

Login to comment on this suggestion