Linking incorrect knowledge articles

[RogueFader]

Hi all

I was wondering how people deal with issues/teams, where an analyst will link or attach an incorrect knowledge article to an incident. Example, analyst links an Adobe article to an issue regarding MS Teams.

At the moment, I'm trying to push our global 1st line teams to link/attach an article if they used it to resolve an issue.

What I'm seeing is a lot of incidents where no knowledge linked, meaning they're resolving and not needing to reference an article, or simply not bothering to link, also some issues where articles that have no bearing on the reported issue or resolution notes is linked.

Thanks

[RaghavSh]

@RogueFader Attaching knowledge article is mandatory for some "resolution code".

Now Both your points are valid but, this is a user training issue. Attaching irrelevant article or no article is not going to do any good but I dont think there is a way to avoid it, Even if any code is written to search the incident short description words in KB article body or short description and it is tried to abort the KB article attach operation, I don't think it would be very accurate.

This issue should be handled with user training only.

Please mark the answer correct/helpful accordingly.

[belzy]

You may need to have an answer to their WIIFM. What's in it for me? 

They need to know why they have to do it and what it is for.

For us, we've added attaching an article to resolve tickets as part of their monthly balanced scorecard.

And we've informed them that the data we gather from this activity will be used to create automations and streamline some processes, so we can make their lives easier.

For the incorrect articles attached, we've added them as part of our QA. 

If a resolved ticket has an attached article that is irrelevant, it is marked down, and sometimes, an auto-fail.

[Eoghan Sinnott]

Hi,

This is a really relevant question, and something we’ve been actively addressing across our global 1st line teams.

In our environment, linking a knowledge article is mandatory for every incident. If an agent genuinely cannot find a relevant article, they’re instructed to use a fallback placeholder called “NoKB found” or “KB0”. These cases are monitored closely, and we work with our service desk coaches to ensure they’re only used appropriately.

We’ve built a process around this that includes:

• Reviewing incidents where placeholders are used to determine if an article could have applied
• Educating agents on where knowledge could have been reused
• Capturing feedback on article findability, relevance, or gaps and creating or updating articles based on these insights
• Importantly, knowledge link accuracy is a tracked KPI for our agents, alongside metrics like Average Handling Time and First Call Resolution. This helps reinforce the importance of correct linking behavior and makes it measurable.

I'm also working on a strategy to automate this KB0 detection and article matching using Flow Designer, notifying agents when a better knowledge article exists and flagging true gaps for review. 

Would love to hear how others are approaching this, especially if you’ve implemented automated relevance checks or feedback loops at scale.

Regards,
Eoghan

🌟 ServiceNow Rising Star 2025

If you found my reply helpful, please consider clicking Helpful or Accept as Solution to assist others in the community!

[David Kay]

In KCS, we build the importance of accurate reuse into training and coaching, relying on the many WIIFMs of linking, as was mentioned. ("Start with the 'why!'")  We check linking and link accuracy with the recently-updated Process Alignment Review.