JP2011118685A - Operation support device - Google Patents

Abstract

<P>PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To quickly and accurately determine a person in charge of an incident. <P>SOLUTION: An incident acceptance part 111 accepts an inquiry and a service request from a user or a failure detected by an operation management tool as an incident. A ticket storage part 120 stores an electronic ticket issued for each incident. A person-in-charge determination part 112 determines a person in charge of the incident accepted by the incident acceptance part 111. The person-in-charge determination part 112 specifies a ticket on which the incident similar to the accepted incident has been recorded among the tickets stored in the ticket storage part 120, and determines the person in charge of the incident recorded on the ticket as a person in charge of the accepted incident. The incidents are classified like a tree structure for management. <P>COPYRIGHT: (C)2011,JPO&INPIT

Description

  The present invention relates to a business support apparatus for supporting a service desk business.

  IT service management is becoming more important than ever as IT infrastructure is being used by a wide range of users. Along with this, there is a demand for more efficient business processes in executing IT service management. Regarding IT service management and operation rules, the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) has published a collection of best practices called Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) (registered trademark).

  Service support is one of the cores of ITIL. Service support is described for daily system operation and user support, and consists of one function and five processes. As functions, a service desk that serves as a contact point for inquiries from users, and incident management, problem management, change management, release management, and configuration management are defined as processes.

  In the service desk business, what kind of inquiries were received from users, how they were responded to, whether functional / hierarchical escalation was necessary, whether the inquiries were processed and closed Accumulate know-how by recording various things. In order to support such service desk operations, a system for accumulating inquiries from users as incident tickets has been put into practical use (see, for example, Patent Documents 1 and 2).

JP 2008-129973 A JP 2005-011140 A

  Many inquiries and service requests are sent to the service desk. The service desk also receives system failure detection from the operation management tool. In order to respond to a large number of inquiries, service requests, and system failures (hereinafter collectively referred to as incidents), a large number of operators and maintenance managers (hereinafter collectively referred to as persons in charge) are mobilized. Until now, it has been common for managers such as department managers to assign personnel to incidents received at service desks.

  Under such circumstances, an optimal person in charge may not be assigned to the accepted incident. In addition, the assignment of persons in charge for accepted incidents was not easily determined. These are due to lack of manager's ability and capacity over, such as lack of manager's awareness, variation of judgment, and busyness.

  The present invention has been made in view of such circumstances, and an object of the present invention is to provide a technique for quickly and accurately determining a person who should handle an incident.

  An operation support apparatus according to an aspect of the present invention is an operation support apparatus for supporting a system support operation, and includes an incident reception unit that receives an inquiry from a user, a service request, or failure detection by an operation management tool as an incident, A ticket holding unit that holds an electronic ticket issued for each incident; and a person-in-charge determination unit that determines a person in charge who should respond to the incident received by the incident reception unit. The person-in-charge determination unit identifies a ticket that records an incident that is similar to the accepted incident among the tickets held in the ticket holding unit, and identifies the person in charge corresponding to the incident recorded in the ticket, Decide on the person in charge.

  It should be noted that any combination of the above-described constituent elements and a conversion of the expression of the present invention between a method, an apparatus, a system, a recording medium, a computer program, etc. are also effective as an aspect of the present invention.

  According to the present invention, it is possible to quickly and accurately determine a person in charge who should handle an incident.

It is a figure which shows the structure of the business assistance system which concerns on embodiment of this invention. It is a figure which shows the format example of the ticket accumulate | stored in a ticket holding part (the 1). It is a figure which shows the format example of the ticket accumulate | stored in a ticket holding part (the 2). It is a figure which shows an example in the case of classifying and managing an incident in a tree structure. It is a figure which shows an example of a classification table. It is a figure for demonstrating the specific example 1 of a person in charge determination process. It is a figure for demonstrating the specific example 2 of a person in charge determination process. It is a flowchart which shows the flow of a person in charge determination process by the work assistance apparatus which concerns on embodiment of this invention.

  FIG. 1 is a diagram showing a configuration of a business support system 500 according to an embodiment of the present invention. The business support system 500 is installed at a service desk to support system support business. The business support system 500 includes a business support device 100 and a console terminal device 200. The business support apparatus 100 can be configured with at least one server. For example, it can be composed of a web server and a database server. The console terminal device 200 can be configured by a PC. A plurality of console terminal devices 200 can be installed. In FIG. 1, one business support apparatus 100 and a plurality of console terminal apparatuses 200A, B,... Are connected by an internal network such as an intranet to constitute a server / client system.

  The business support apparatus 100 includes a control unit 110, a ticket holding unit 120, a classification table 130, and a communication unit 140. The control unit 110 includes an incident reception unit 111 and a person-in-charge determination unit 112. The console terminal device 200 includes a communication unit 210, a control unit 220, a display unit 230, and an operation unit 240.

  The respective configurations of the business support apparatus 100 and the console terminal apparatus 200 can be realized in hardware by a CPU, memory, or other LSI of an arbitrary computer, and are realized by software loaded in a memory. However, here, functional blocks that are realized by their cooperation are depicted. Therefore, those skilled in the art will understand that these functional blocks can be realized in various forms by hardware only, software only, or a combination thereof.

  The incident reception unit 111 receives an inquiry from a user, a service request, or failure detection by an operation management tool as an incident. The ticket holding unit 120 holds an electronic ticket issued for each incident. Incidents issued in the ticket may be managed in a tree structure. Details of this management example will be described later.

  Inquiries and service requests from users are sent to the service desk via telephone, FAX, postcard, sealed letter, e-mail, input form in a website, and the like. The operator of the service desk inputs the inquiry content and the service request content received through them from the operation unit 240 of the console terminal device 200 and issues the ticket. A format example of the ticket will be described later.

  Also, when inquiry information, service request information is sent through the input form in the website, and when failure detection information is sent from the operation management tool, at least some of the items in the above format The content may be automatically entered.

  The person-in-charge determining unit 112 determines a person in charge who should respond to the incident received by the incident receiving unit 111. At that time, the person-in-charge determining unit 112 identifies a ticket that records an incident similar to the accepted incident among the tickets held in the ticket holding unit 120, and selects a person in charge corresponding to the incident recorded in the ticket. Determine the person in charge of the accepted incident. A specific example of this person-in-charge determination will be described later.

  The classification table 130 is provided when incidents issued in tickets are classified and managed in a tree structure. In that case, the classification table 130 describes the score of each hierarchy which forms the tree structure which manages an incident. A specific example of the classification table 130 will be described later. The communication unit 140 transmits / receives information to / from the communication unit 210 of the console terminal device 200, a communication unit of a user terminal (not shown), or a communication unit of a management operation tool (not shown).

  The communication unit 210 of the console terminal device 200 transmits and receives information to and from the communication unit 140 of the business support device 100 or the communication unit 210 of another console terminal device 200. The control unit 220 controls the console terminal device 200 as a whole. The display unit 230 displays a screen. In the present embodiment, the ticket management screen is mainly displayed. The operation unit 240 receives an operation of an operator or a person in charge and transmits it to the control unit 220.

  FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating a format example of a ticket stored in the ticket holding unit 120 (part 1). FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating a format example of a ticket stored in the ticket holding unit 120 (part 2). A ticket 600 is issued for each incident. 2 and 3, the ticket 600 includes basic information 610, classification information 620, progress information 630, draft date 641, and closing date 642.

  The basic information 610 includes, as items, an ID 611, a status 612, a system name 613, a title 614, a report content 615, a corresponding deadline date 616a, a corresponding deadline time 616b, a generation environment 617, and a procedure manual number 618. A serial number may be assigned to ID 611 in the order of acceptance on a daily basis. In the status 612, “accepted” is input before the corresponding person is assigned, and “allocated” is input after the corresponding person is assigned.

  The classification information 620 includes, as items, a cause category 621, a difficulty level 622, an urgency level 623, a priority level 624, a system 625, an OS 626, an OS version 627, an application 628, and a keyword 629. In the cause category 621, the cause of the incident is input. For example, “defect”, “inquiry”, “work request”, and the like are input. The difficulty level 622 is input with the incident resolution difficulty level. In the urgency level 623, an urgency level determined based on an objective factor (for example, an impact level on a customer service) is input. As the priority 624, a priority determined by adding a business viewpoint (eg, maintenance contract level, customer rank) to objective factors is input. For example, “high”, “medium”, “low”, and the like are input to the difficulty level 622, the urgency level 623, and the priority level 624.

  The system 625, the OS 626, the OS version 627, and the application 628 are items for classifying incidents. Here, an example is shown in which incidents are classified in four layers, but they may be classified in less than three layers or in five or more layers. For example, application versions may be added and classified in five layers.

  The progress information 630 is generated every time an action such as a response to a customer, a recovery work, a meeting, or the like is performed on the issued incident. The progress information 630 includes, as items, a title 631, a corresponding date 632, a corresponding time 633, a corresponding person 634, a corresponding destination 635, a channel 636, contents 637, and an attached file 638. Channel 636 is input with the channel that caused one process to be formed. For example, telephone, FAX, mail, and conference are described. In the content 637, the content of the response to the customer, the content of the recovery work, the matters determined for the conference, and the like are input. If there are document files or drawing files related to these contents, they can be attached to the attached file 638.

  As the draft date 641, the date when the ticket was drafted is input. As the closing date 642, the date when the response to the incident managed by the ticket is completed is input.

  These items are basically manually input by an operator based on the contents of an inquiry from a user, an in-house manual, an instruction from a service desk manager, and the like. Note that some items may be designed to be automatically input systematically.

  FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating an example of managing incidents by classifying them into a tree structure. FIG. 4 illustrates an example of management by classifying into four layers. The first classification is a system classification, the second classification is an OS classification, the third classification is an OS version classification, and the fourth classification is an application classification.

  4, the first classification includes “server” 1000, “mainframe” 2000,. The second classification includes “Windows” (registered trademark, hereinafter omitted) 1100, “Linux” (registered trademark, hereinafter omitted) 1200,. The third classification is “XP” (“Windows XP” registered trademark, hereinafter omitted) 1110, “Vista” (“Windows Vista” registered trademark, hereinafter omitted) 1120, “RedHat” (registered trademark, hereinafter omitted) 1210, “ ”SUSE” (registered trademark, hereinafter omitted) 1220... The fourth category includes “Office” (registered trademark, hereinafter omitted) 1111, 1121, “IE (Internet Explorer)” (registered trademark, hereinafter omitted) 1112, 1122,.

  The person-in-charge determination unit 112 identifies, among the tickets held in the ticket holding unit 120, a ticket that records a past incident with a classification that matches or most closely matches the classification of the received new incident, and is recorded in the ticket The person in charge corresponding to the past incident is determined as the person in charge of the new incident. In the example shown in FIGS. 2 to 4, the incident classification can be specified by the system 625, the OS 626, the version 627, and the application 628 of the classification information 620. For example, when there is a past incident having a classification that matches all four classifications of the new incident, the person in charge corresponding to the past incident is determined as the person in charge of the new incident.

  FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating an example of the classification table 130. The classification table 130 includes a classification 131 and a score value 132 as items. The person-in-charge determining unit 112 can convert the classification into a score value with reference to the classification table 130.

  FIG. 5 shows a table based on the four classifications shown in FIG. In the table, the first classification is set to 1.00, the second classification is 2.00, the third classification is 3.00, and the fourth classification is 4.00. As described above, the score value is set higher as the classification from the upper hierarchy to the lower hierarchy.

  The person-in-charge determining unit 112 compares the classification of incidents recorded in the ticket held in the ticket holding unit 120 with the classification of received incidents for each hierarchy, and totals the scores of the hierarchy with the same classification Is calculated for each ticket, and the person in charge corresponding to the incident recorded in the ticket having the highest total score is determined as the person in charge of the accepted incident. Hereinafter, a specific example of this person-in-charge determination process will be shown.

  FIG. 6 is a diagram for explaining a specific example 1 of the person-in-charge determination process. In the first specific example, the classification of the received new incident is “server” — “Windows” — “XP” — “Office”. The classification of the past incident A is “server”-“Windows”-“XP”-“IE”. When both are compared, "server"-"Windows"-"XP" matches. Since the classification scores are 1.00, 2.00, and 3.00, the total score is 6.00.

  The classification of the past incident B is “server”-“Windows”-“Vista”-“Office”. When calculated in the same manner, the total score is 7.00. Hereinafter, the total score is calculated for all past incidents, and the past incident having the highest total score is identified. The past incident (incident B in FIG. 6) can be estimated to be most similar to the new incident. Therefore, the person in charge of the past incident (Suzuki in FIG. 6) is determined as the person in charge of the new incident.

  FIG. 7 is a diagram for explaining a specific example 2 of the person-in-charge determination process. Specific example 2 is obtained by adding processing to specific example 1 when there are a plurality of incidents having the same total score. In the second specific example, the classification of the past incident C is “server” − “Windows” − “Vista” − “Office” as in the past incident B. In this case, a past incident with a recent close date is selected. Here, since the closing date of the past incident C is more recent, the person in charge (Takahashi in FIG. 6) is determined as the person in charge of the new incident. In this way, the person-in-charge determining unit 112 prioritizes the incident that has been handled the most recently when there are a plurality of incidents that match or most closely match the classification of the accepted incident.

  FIG. 8 is a flowchart showing the flow of person-in-charge determination processing by the business support apparatus 100 according to the embodiment of the present invention. First, when the incident reception unit 111 receives an incident (Y in S700), a ticket for the incident is issued, and the person-in-charge determination unit 112 extracts the classifications of all levels of the new incident from the ticket (S701). ).

  Next, the variable i is set to an initial value (S702). The person-in-charge determining unit 112 compares the classification of the new incident and the classification of the past incident (i) for each hierarchy, and identifies the matching classification (S703). The person-in-charge determination unit 112 converts the matching classification into a score value with reference to the classification table 130 (S704), and totals the converted score values (S705).

  Next, the variable i is incremented (S706). The processes from step S703 to step S706 are repeated while the variable i does not exceed the number of past incidents (N in S707). When the variable i exceeds the number of past incidents (Y in S707), the person-in-charge determining unit 112 identifies the past incident having the highest calculated total score, and designates the person in charge of the past incident as the person in charge of the new incident. Determine (S708).

  As described above, according to this embodiment, the person responsible for the new incident is automatically assigned to the person responsible for the new incident so that the person responsible for the new incident can be quickly and accurately assigned. Can be determined. That is, it is possible to suppress delays and variations in judgment that are likely to occur when the person in charge is artificially determined. Also, by defining the classification in a tree structure, the similarity between incidents can be determined more accurately.

  Further, by assigning different weights to the classification match for each hierarchy, the similarity between incidents can be determined more accurately. For example, in the example illustrated in FIG. 6, the similarity determination can be made closer to the entity by placing more importance on the OS match than the system match and the application match than the OS match. That is, if the application is different even if the OS is the same, the degree of experience of the person in charge is small, but if the application is the same even if the OS is different, the degree of experience of the person in charge can be utilized. It can reflect the rule of thumb that is large.

  In addition, when there are a plurality of past incidents having the maximum total score, the person in charge of the past incident with the latest closing date is prioritized, so that the person in charge of the incident can be selected.

  The present invention has been described based on some embodiments. It is understood by those skilled in the art that these embodiments are exemplifications, and that various modifications can be made to combinations of the respective constituent elements and processing processes, and such modifications are also within the scope of the present invention. By the way.

  For example, in the second specific example, when there are a plurality of past incidents having the maximum total score, the process of giving priority to the person in charge of the past incident with the latest closing date has been described. In this regard, the person-in-charge determining unit 112 extracts all past incidents existing within a predetermined setting range (for example, less than 1.00) from the maximum value of the total score, and the closing date is among those past incidents. The person in charge of the latest past incident may be given priority.

  Further, the person-in-charge determining unit 112 extracts a predetermined number of past incidents (for example, 5) in descending order of the total score, and gives priority to the person in charge of the past incident with the latest closing date among the past incidents. May be. Note that these two modifications may be used under AND conditions.

  In addition, the person-in-charge determination unit 112 extracts a plurality of past incidents by any of the methods described above, and then determines a person in charge of a new incident according to the degree of business congestion of each person in charge of those past incidents. Also good. For example, the person in charge with the lowest work congestion may be determined. According to this, in addition to the effects described above, it is possible to equalize the workload of the person in charge belonging to the service desk.

  In addition, the person-in-charge determination unit 112 extracts a plurality of past incidents by any of the methods described above, and then creates a new incident according to the work congestion level of each person in charge of those past incidents and the closing date of those past incidents. The person in charge may be determined. In this case, a table for converting the degree of business congestion and the number of days until the closing date into scores may be provided, and the total score thereof may be calculated. The person-in-charge determination unit 112 determines a person in charge of the new incident with reference to the total score.

  In addition, when there are a plurality of past incidents with the maximum total score, the person-in-charge determining unit 112 gives priority to the person in charge who has been responsible for the largest number of past incidents with the maximum total score within a predetermined period. Also good. In this case, a person in charge with a lot of experience can be selected.

  DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 100 Work support apparatus, 110 Control part, 111 Incident reception part, 112 Person in charge determination part, 120 Ticket holding part, 130 Classification table, 140 Communication part, 200 Console terminal device, 210 Communication part, 220 Control part, 230 Display part, 240 operation units, 500 business support system.

Claims (4)

A business support device for supporting system support business,
An incident reception unit that receives an inquiry from a user, a service request, or failure detection by an operation management tool as an incident;
A ticket holding unit that holds an electronic ticket issued for each incident;
A person-in-charge determination unit for determining a person in charge who should respond to the incident received by the incident reception unit;
The person-in-charge determination unit identifies a ticket that records an incident similar to the accepted incident among the tickets held in the ticket holding unit, and receives a person in charge corresponding to the incident recorded in the ticket A business support apparatus characterized by being determined as a person in charge of an incident. Incidents are managed in a tree structure,
The person-in-charge determination unit identifies a ticket that records incidents of a category that matches or most closely matches the category of the accepted incident among the tickets held in the ticket holding unit, and sets the incident recorded in the ticket The business support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a corresponding person in charge is determined as a person in charge of the received incident. It further includes a table describing the scores of each hierarchy forming a tree structure for managing incidents,
The score is set higher according to the classification from the upper hierarchy to the lower hierarchy,
The person-in-charge determination unit compares the classification of incidents recorded in the ticket held in the ticket holding unit with the classification of accepted incidents for each hierarchy, and totals the scores of the hierarchy with the same classification The work support apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the person in charge corresponding to the incident recorded in the ticket having the highest total score is determined as the person in charge of the accepted incident.   The said person in charge determination part gives priority to the incident with which the response was completed in the near future, when there are a plurality of incidents having the same or most similar classification as the received incident classification. The business support device described.

Images