What do Support Analysts Know About Their Customers? On the Study and Prediction of Support Ticket Escalations in Large Software Organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".