As part of a report I’m putting together for our management, I’d
appreciate comments from other RT users as to why you chose RT over
other ticketing systems. In particular, I’m interested to know what
features/benefits RT provides you as compared with other open source
ticketing systems such as osTicket and OTRS.
All comments gratefully received!
Cheers
Mark
Mark,
I haven’t worked with the tools you mentioned, but I can tell you that RT
is designed and written to be very flexible. Rather than design a bunch of
stuff that has to be ripped out or re-worked, Best Practical gives you a
system that acts as a foundation from which you can EASILY add more
functionality as you evolve your processes. As a consultant, I have worked
with many other tools from very large companies like IBM, HP as well as
seen some Enterprise level cloud systems like Daptiv and although RT
doesn’t give you the “Enterprise” perspective, it does give you more design
flexibility than any of them as well as one of the best ticketing systems
I’ve seen. The ability to design different functions and processes for each
individual Queue, as well as permissions on that same level, allows you to
apply multiple approaches and designs to answer your process needs. Do you
remember the TV commercial where the guy is walking thru a Circuit City
store and states “I could have got a better TV, FOR LESS!”. Well, that’s RT.
KennOn Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 5:23 AM, Mark Goodge mark@good-stuff.co.uk wrote:
As part of a report I’m putting together for our management, I’d
appreciate comments from other RT users as to why you chose RT over other
ticketing systems. In particular, I’m interested to know what
features/benefits RT provides you as compared with other open source
ticketing systems such as osTicket and OTRS.All comments gratefully received!
Cheers
Mark
Hi,
I’d have to agree that the amount of flexibility is what got us to work
with RT.
By default you get a framework, which is rather basic (ticket id, priority,
owner and requestor, etc.). From there you can develop lifecycles (sounds
complicated, but it’s a simple config) which you can dedicate to separate
queue’s allowing you to have different processes per queue + the custom
fields make it extremely easy to extend information linked to tickets,
queues, groups, users.
Overall this flexibility is what got us to use RT, it can easily support
most of our processes which basically comes down to these
processes/departement that we have in RT:
Hope this gives you some insights.2013/4/6 Kenneth Crocker kenn.crocker@gmail.com
Mark,
I haven’t worked with the tools you mentioned, but I can tell you that RT
is designed and written to be very flexible. Rather than design a bunch of
stuff that has to be ripped out or re-worked, Best Practical gives you a
system that acts as a foundation from which you can EASILY add more
functionality as you evolve your processes. As a consultant, I have worked
with many other tools from very large companies like IBM, HP as well as
seen some Enterprise level cloud systems like Daptiv and although RT
doesn’t give you the “Enterprise” perspective, it does give you more design
flexibility than any of them as well as one of the best ticketing systems
I’ve seen. The ability to design different functions and processes for each
individual Queue, as well as permissions on that same level, allows you to
apply multiple approaches and designs to answer your process needs. Do you
remember the TV commercial where the guy is walking thru a Circuit City
store and states “I could have got a better TV, FOR LESS!”. Well, that’s RT.Kenn
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 5:23 AM, Mark Goodge mark@good-stuff.co.uk wrote:
As part of a report I’m putting together for our management, I’d
appreciate comments from other RT users as to why you chose RT over other
ticketing systems. In particular, I’m interested to know what
features/benefits RT provides you as compared with other open source
ticketing systems such as osTicket and OTRS.All comments gratefully received!
Cheers
Mark
Bart G.