Ideal, and Actual, IT Performance Metrics?

An anonymous reader writes "Recently it was revealed that our company measures IT performance by the time it takes to close trouble tickets. I consider IT's primary goal to be as transparent to the user as possible, thus this metric was rather troubling to me. Shouldn't we be focused on reducing calls, rather than simply closing them quickly? My question is: How is your IT performance measured, and how do you think it should be measured?"

Comments

Sounds good to me.

[khasim]

For example, for every fax successfully sent via the fax server without IT intervention, the IT department gets one point.

For every fax that needs IT intervention to be sent, the IT department loses one point.

For every person who becomes aware of a problem with the fax server, the IT department loses one point. No more "heroics". The goal is to be as invisible as possible to the end users.

And similar items for every other server/service that IT supports. If nothing else, it will show exactly where the problems really are.

Re:Sliding Average

[Lumpy]

Problem is most PHB's CANT understand that.

They think that solving it faster = better. and if the number of calls goes down, you are doing something wrong.

we were unable to fight it at comcast as the idiot CTO demanded it. so I instructed my guys to put in a ticket for EVERYTHING and if it was a instant fix, open the ticket and close it in 1 minute.

Before I left my department got an award as our ticket accounting was 4X higher than the rest of the division and we had the lowest time to resolution. Problem is that Remedy sucks so it actually slowed down my guys having to enter all those useless tickets.

Yes it's technically fudging it, but the executive in charge was not listening to any of us so we skewed it to our favor.