One of the things that I think is important to do with any ticketing system is to triage any issues. What issues are we working on, what are we putting off until later, what ones have been discussed and are not going to be fixed. Be clear what's actually being done.
I think that this is a hard thing to do well. It takes time and dedication. Not only do you have to triage new tickets, but you have to occasionally check older tickets to address them if their status has changed: is it no longer relevant? Should the status / priority be escalated? Let's call this "re-triage".
I find that people are more often frustrated with lack of information than with lack of action. Knowing where in the queue you are is a comfort.
Having said that, you can't queue people's issue forever. But that's where the re-triage comes in. ;-)
XP/agile processes continually triage "tickets" for bugs and new features to re-prioritize them.
ReplyDeleteThe logic is that the "risk" of doing the ticket is dependent on the current state of the system, which is constantly changing as new tickets are completed. Some tickets become more important as the system ages, while others become moot.