Implementation of a performance tracking system for a Wide Area Network Provider's Frame Relay Services group

Abstract

The current system employed by the Wide Area Network Provider's Frame Relay Services group for tracking and improving the performance of the Frame Relay Trouble Ticket Resolution Group ("TTRG") lacks a comprehensive long term approach that involves and informs personnel of the TTRG. The existing system tracks twenty one indices for the Frame Relay group, of which only two apply directly to the TTRG sub-group. Because of the complexity and added importance of the TTRG, management should reconsider developing at least six more TTRG specific performance indicators (eight total) to better define the group's performance. With the current tracking system, scores are not readily displayed and benchmark performance values are not obvious to the TTRG nor are they utilized for comparing current levels of performance to past levels. Performance is based on the score of each individual indicator. A collective performance score, based on the weighted score of each index, is not used. A single goal is set for each index, but the time frame to accomplish them is not apparent to the TIRG. There is no distinction between short, medium, or long term goals. Lastly, the Clear Code chart used to define the resolution of a trouble ticket lacks organization and consistency and the format of the codes is insufficient to properly identify the fix to the level of granularity requested by management. The approach taken for this report attempts to alleviate the above short comings. First, a new long term based performance tracking and scoring methodology was identified. Secondly, the TTRG's trouble shooting process for their Fractional T1 Frame Relay access card was flow charted in detail. Next, a criteria list for better defining an index's importance to the process and the TTRG was developed. From the Fractional T1 flow analysis and the criteria list, eight new performance indices were defined. Of the eight performance indices, four were selected for study. Data collected for the four indices was applied to the recommended performance tracking and scoring methodology. Lastly, improvement procedures and programs were implement to increase the accuracy of the collected data and clarify the readability of the trouble ticket. The report's findings and recommendations are the following:

Identified a methodology that takes a comprehensive long term approach to performance tracking and process improvement and can be implemented with minimum effort and disruption. 2. Identified eight new performance indices that better define the TTRG's overall performance. Of the eight indices, three were tracked and evaluated. Because of its importance to management, a fourth indirectly related index was also tracked. New Clear Code format, chart and numbers. Detailed flow chart of the Fract-T1 trouble shooting process. Benchmark values for the Collective MTTR, Clear Code, TTRG Proactiveness, and 25 Minute Proactiveness indices. Improvement in the Clear Code and TTRG Proactiveness indices. Improvement in the accuracy of the performance data. Error rates of the data for the Clear Code and Proactiveness indicators. The importance of "being proactive" in identifying a power outage at the customers premise. 10. The importance of an automated data collection system in gathering the data and improving it's accuracy.