How do you audit the quality of knowledge articles attached to incidents?

NancyS1 · ‎04-19-2019

We have implemented the Knowledge-Centered Service (KCS) methodology in our department and we're tracking the contribution rate - the number of times the incident tickets have either a knowledge article attached or the assigned resource checked the box to create a knowledge article from the incident ticket.

We're just getting starting out, but the attachment rate is really starting to grow. I did a little looking around and I saw that a couple of people are attaching articles that have nothing to do with the issue. It could be they need additional training or they may be trying to get the numbers up.

My problem is trying to see what's going on has been a very manual effort. Is there any report, either out of the box or one I create, that can show me whether the article has anything to do with the issue in the ticket?

I'd love to know how or even if others are auditing this type of information. Thanks

Uncle Rob · ‎04-19-2019

Without the use of an advanced AI, it'd be hard to understand how "this collection of text, categories, and CIs" has anything to do with "that collection of text, categories, and CIs".

Additionally, I wouldn't try to manage that at the micro level. It's in nobody's self interest to relate irrelevant articles at scale. One thing you can count on is that nobody actually WANTS to do data entry on ServiceNow, so they're primally instinctively looking for the least amount of transactions. Put another way: If the knowledge isn't being flagged, low rated, or unused, why should we care?

View solution in original post

thomashansson · ‎01-25-2020

I created a report against m2m_kb_task table showing the Task Short description next to the Article Short description. The article short description shows up for me in the report, (knowledge manager). But my KCS coaches which are contributors with the role knowledge coach added cannot see the article short description in the report. Have you encountered this problem and solved it?

Michael QCKM · ‎01-28-2020

No, sorry. I've not encountered this issue. I am KB_Admin Role and have a smattering of rights. As far as I know, the users I've shared this report with can see it (but you know... sometimes they never check or let you know).

May need to look at the permissions in the coach role. Likely if it's OOB, it's missing many useful permissions.

I suggest you take it up with your SN Admin. If you are an SN Admin, then I believe you'll need to research/take it up with your vendor Support.

I (and the rest of the users here) would love to see the "final outcome" of this, so please don't forget to post one if you get it addressed.

Sarah Lybro · ‎02-26-2020

This is a challenging yet very interessting area. Working in a global organization with a multi vendor setup.

Coaching - PAR review. Currently no technical support from ServiceNow to assess incidents, and therefore we currently use excel for this follow up.

Training and communication of course, the value adding part of why we want to be able to follow the use count for kb articles.

Very aware of the risks, we are still measuring link rate inc/kb, and have experienced what you Michael refers to as "bogus attachments".

It is a not only bad, it is actually a great way to identify improvement opportunities when it comes to coaching, training, communication.

The benefits we gain from being able to do analysis based on knowledge activities are greater than the challenges with bogus attachments 🙂

You can check/subsribe to this post related to PAR.