Impact of not using "urgency/impact/priority" in ITSM.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-02-2024 06:52 AM
Hello,
Just want to clarify if anyone has experience ignoring (not using) the default fields of "urgency/impact/priority" in ITSM product.
One of my client is planning to create a new single field (with few levels similar like low/medium/high) and just use it instead of Priority. They will only use this new field following current incident management process when creating incident.
Technically we can simply hide the relevant fields in the form, and create a new field, and assuming there will be no impact in the operation.
However, there is plan to implement CMDB and also SecOps VR in the near future.
Could you kindly share if you see any risk or foresee any problem in above scenario? Thanks in advance.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-02-2024 07:22 AM
It depends on behaviours of agents. I have had customers not use impact & urgency , but still use priority, as they felt the agents would just game the system i.e. select impact & urgency to get the priority they wanted.
Not using priority I would say is not great practice - its going to have a ripple effect into SLA's , reporting, workspaces, major incident etc