Ticket Efficiency reports

[Andy]

@garyh

This report is useless. It has no bearing on time getting burned by techs or their efficiency. The calculation appears to be from when the ticket is created until it is closed. That has nothing to do with the amount of time a tech spent on the ticket or how efficient they are.

Efficiency is exactly what this is measuring. It’s taking the efficiency of your entire MSP as a baseline, and this must include time the tickets are sitting unattended in a queue, and then breaks that down to compare each technician’s work against the global effort. If you don’t count the time the ticket was stuck in a queue, you could be taking two weeks to resolve a problem as an MSP, even when the ticket took 5 minutes of work to complete.

I think what you are likely after is technician utilization, though that isn’t measuring efficiency either. This is basically saying my tech clocked in for 40 hours this week, show me all the time they logged (assigned time to, billable or otherwise) for the same period of time. This report isn’t designed with that in mind, and this would be another report down the road which I do admit we need and we should build.

@DBlue

correct, the report you have called “Ticket Efficiency by Technician” isn’t all that useful for MSPs at our size of 1 to 2 techs.

Yep this report wasn’t designed for one-person shops or those with one tech. At that level any report measuring tech efficiency or utilization isn’t going to be overly beneficial, because you are small enough to monitor those types of things as part of your normal “day-to-day.” However, the customer efficiency report is massively beneficial to MSPs of all sizes, including startup MSPs, because it exposes poorly qualified contracts by design.

@DBlue

For example, keeping track of the time a ticket is waiting for parts, or waiting for quote is as important to know as keeping track of the time a ticket is in progress.

This specifically has nothing to do with technician efficiency. I would highly suggest reading our KB article so you can better understand the feature and how it can be customized to these types of situations. You can pause the timer on any status you want, so you shouldn’t ever be tracking the time a ticket wasn’t in a workable status, like when you are waiting for a part of holding on a customer to approve a quote.

@DBlue

Such large SD orgs would measure Technician efficiency based on Available hours and Billed hours.

You are mixing two different reports, here. When measuring billed time against available hours, that is typically defined as technician utilization. Again, that has far less to do with efficiency and far more to do with ensuring all time is being allocated for properly (missed billables).

@garyh

To make this report even somewhat useful, our engineers would need to put a ticket into a production status like “In Progress” when starting to work on each ticket, and set another status when they stop, even if they take a break.

Your customers don’t care if you took a break or not, which is why efficiency is measured as the time any given ticket was in a workable state. Saying that your company efficiency, and therefore your tech efficiency is identical if your employees take 4 hours of breaks in an 8-hour period vs 1 hour in an 8-hour period cannot and should not be reported the same way.

As I mentioned above, I think you are looking more for a tech utilization report. That’s something we’ll be looking at in the future.