Incident vs Service Request
I need your assistance please. I am having a debate right now with some folks here about creating an incident ticket(ICM) when a Service Request(SVR) has not been successfully completed. Why should we open an incident …this is not what ITIL says.
Why are we reworking SVR’s as ICM’s? This is incorrect from an ITIL perspective. The purpose of Incident Management is to restore service during an outage or service-affecting-issue as quick as possible.
Would this be classed as a change-related incident i.e. a SVR was not done correctly which results in an incident being created. Now the resolution of that rework is being driven through an incident.
You response will be greatly appreciated.
I'm not sure all SVRs are a CRI? Sme SVRs are a CIIHAMP (can I have a manual please) or a MMD (move my desktop) or a GMATTFP (give me access to the portal or else). Are they CRIs? or JPRs (just plain requests)?
So is a SVR a service or at least part of one? Many would think so. If a SVR is SNAFU then is that an I2S (interruption to service) or not?
According to TSTs (The Sacred Texts) if a change fails then it is a "revised RFC" according to ST 18.104.22.168 - it does refer to "incidents arising" but I think they mean IIs (inadvertent ICMs).
So if a SVR is an RFC and gets SNAFU and causes IIs, then it should become a RRFC, but if a SVR is a JPR then when it GPS (goes pear shaped) it might arguably be an I2S and hence cause ICM.
P.S. I like talking to you - I can IMOA (invent my own acronyms)