Service Desk Audit
09/20/2021 02:37:34 am
1.0 Audit configuration
A total of 16 participants were sent invites to complete the audit, across a wide set of disciplines, as per the list below: –
1.2 Service desk aspects questions
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.
|Question||Influence avg||Performance avg||Difference|
|Average proficiency rating:NAN|
|SDI Standard Level:NAN
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
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.
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.
2.2 Summary table : average score breakdown across entire sample per question
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
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)