The absence of a formal workflow following the opening of a new ticket failed to dynamically route requests to the right IT individuals. For instance, a call from a C-level executive could not be routed to the right IT person. Also, there was no formal way to notify IT staff on approaching deadlines to address service requests. The practice of manually updating CMDB made all the data inputs disjointed, thereby failing to create dependent relationship rules.
The cumulative impact of this was the failure to track requests and asset repair histories. Though the client was able to store data about incidents and how they were resolved, they struggled to link those details to the actual systems involved. This made the entire process of resolving requests too time consuming, error-prone, and repetitive. All these made it difficult for the client to control and measure the effectiveness of their IT infrastructure and efficiency of their IT staff.