An internal service provider has made the service desk a single point of contact for all user queries, including incidents, service requests, complaints, and compliments. To ensure a fair allocation…

Question

Options

• AIncrease the number of service desk agents to process the incoming queries faster
• BPrioritize incoming queries based on their type and associated urgency
• CImplement separate service desks for incident and service requests
• DRecommend users to submit queries well in advance to ensure timely processing

• A
  6% (1)
• B
  75% (12)
• C
  13% (2)
• D
  6% (1)

Explanation

Prioritizing queries by type and urgency (B) directly addresses the core problem: a blanket "first in, first out" rule treats a low-impact service request the same as a business-critical incident, causing high-impact issues to sit in queue unnecessarily. ITIL best practice requires incidents to be triaged and prioritized based on urgency and business impact so that the most critical issues receive attention first.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A - Adding agents treats the symptom (queue speed), not the root cause (lack of prioritization); you'd still resolve low-priority items before critical ones.
• C - Separate service desks fragment resources and add complexity; the problem isn't the channel, it's the processing order.
• D - Users cannot predict incidents in advance - incidents are unplanned by definition, so this is impractical and irrelevant.

Memory tip: Think of an emergency room triage model - hospitals don't treat patients purely in arrival order; they assess severity first. Service desks should work the same way. If you see a scenario where "first in, first out" causes critical things to wait, the answer is almost always prioritization by urgency/impact, not more staff or more queues.

No community discussion yet for this question.