MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2759755869 · doi:10.1109/re.2017.61

What do Support Analysts Know About Their Customers? On the Study and Prediction of Support Ticket Escalations in Large Software Organizations

2017· preprint· en· W2759755869 on OpenAlexaff
Lloyd Montgomery, Daniela Damian

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTicketComputer scienceIBMDecision support systemProcess (computing)Process managementKnowledge managementEngineeringComputer securityArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding and keeping the customer happy is a central tenet of requirements engineering. Strategies to gather, analyze, and negotiate requirements are complemented by efforts to manage customer input after products have been deployed. For the latter, support tickets are key in allowing customers to submit their issues, bug reports, and feature requests. Whenever insufficient attention is given to support issues, however, their escalation to management is time-consuming and expensive, especially for large organizations managing hundreds of customers and thousands of support tickets. Our work provides a step towards simplifying the job of support analysts and managers, particularly in predicting the risk of escalating support tickets. In a field study at our large industrial partner, IBM, we used a design science methodology to characterize the support process and data available to IBM analysts in managing escalations. Through iterative cycles of design and evaluation, we translated our understanding of support analysts' expert knowledge of their customers into features of a support ticket model to be implemented into a Machine Learning model to predict support ticket escalations. We trained and evaluated our Machine Learning model on over 2.5 million support tickets and 10,000 escalations, obtaining a recall of 79.9% and an 80.8% reduction in the workload for support analysts looking to identify support tickets at risk of escalation. Further on-site evaluations, through a prototype tool we developed to implement our Machine Learning techniques in practice, showed more efficient weekly support-ticket-management meetings. The features we developed in the Support Ticket Model are designed to serve as a starting place for organizations interested in implementing our model to predict support ticket escalations, and for future researchers to build on to advance research in escalation prediction.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207