report3

Service Desk Audit

Version 1.0
09/20/2021 02:37:34 am

1.0 Audit configuration

1.1 Participants

A total of 16 participants were sent invites to complete the audit, across a wide set of disciplines, as per the list below: –

andyw@consultationinstitute.org
brucew@consultationinstitute.org
carolinel@consultationinstitute.org

frying2@pumpkins2.com

james@junk.com
keith@consultationinstitute.org
henderson_ep@yahoo.co.uk
nd@consultationinstitute.org
paulp@consultationinstitute.org
rhion@rhion.com
sheenaa@consultationinstitute.org
susan@mutualgain.org

1.2 Service desk aspects questions

Total subqs0

The audit consisted of 0 questions arranged in 0 themes. These were as follows:-

1.3 The collection period

The distribution of responses received during the collection period is shown in the graph below.
This participants has not completed the survey yetThis participants has not completed the survey yetThis participants has not completed the survey yetThis participants has not completed the survey yet4 participants failed to complete the survey in time

Submissions in the last year

2.0 Synthesis of results across all participants

This section looks at the individual service desk aspects across all of the participants to determine the overall priorities for the business unit.

The pie chart below shows the proportion of the entire sample which had issues compared to those which did not (for all service desk aspects which were deemed as being able to influence).NAN% of responses were in a ‘problem’ zone, where there were high levels of influence yet low levels of performance.

Powered by TSBA.mobi GoogleGraph Wordpress plugin

Assessed current overall service desk level :NAN

2.1 Focus areas by individual service desk aspects

Participants said they had most influence over “” across the cohort and participants felt they had least influence over “” across the cohort.

Service desk aspects which people rated that they had low influence over [a score of 4 or lower – suggesting that they are either highly controlled, outsourced, or uncompromising ] are: –

The next graph shows the average influence score for all service desk aspects across the group of participants.Bars shaded in red are problem areas

Powered by TSBA.mobi GoogleGraph Wordpress plugin

The next graph shows each service desk aspect and how it was scored in relation to average performance. The service desk aspects have been ordered in terms of descending score.

The service desk aspect of “” was rated as being the highest performing across the cohort and “” was rated as being the poorest performing aspect of the service desk across the cohort.

Powered by TSBA.mobi GoogleGraph Wordpress plugin


The next graph shows the difference between average influence and average performance. The service desk aspects are then arranged in descending order of score. Consequently, those service desk aspects which appear near the top of the graph (where influence is greater than performance) are most significant in terms of focus whereas the service desk aspects near the bottom (where performance is greater than influence) are least significant in terms of an overarching focus.

Powered by TSBA.mobi GoogleGraph Wordpress plugin

2.2 Summary table : average score breakdown across entire sample per question

Question

Influence avg

Performance avg

Difference

Average proficiency rating:NAN

SDI Standard Level:NAN

Gap Affected aspect Avg rel

This table above shows the average difference by aspect where the average gap score is greater than 1 and the average influence is 4 or more. The “affected” column indicates how many participants fall into the problem zone.

2.3 Distribution by service desk aspect

This section contains a number of bubble graphs which show the frequency and distribution results plotted across all participants (anonymised). These can be used as a visual aid to understand if there are underutilised service desk aspects as well as monitor trends over time. The size of each circle on the graph is proportional to the frequency at which the particular influence and performance co-ordinate was given across the participants.

Comfort zone where influence is 5 and above and performance 5 and above
Total number of answers analysed (participants x questions) :0

Bubble Graph

Ratios

Powered by TSBA.mobi GoogleGraph Wordpress plugin

Of the plots that are relevant..
Problem: NAN%
Comfort: NAN%
2.5 Confidence per theme

The following graph is a summary of the previous information whereby cohort confidence percentages have been plotted against each aspect (confidence = percent comfort minus percent problem)

Powered by TSBA.mobi GoogleGraph Wordpress plugin