Preserve Group and Assignee for user-generated follow-up tickets
Whenever a user writes back to a Closed ticket, a follow-up is created without Group or Assignee.
If the original ticket was assigned a Group or Assignee, i think those should be preserved in the follow-up.
It would help keep track of the follow-up tickets better. (right now they are just lost in an "everything else" view)
We're working to get answers from our product team for some of these longstanding threads, and we don't blame you for being frustrated at the lack of response. In the meantime, there is a workaround discussed here (and I'm sorry we didn't link to this sooner, and I realize the workaround doesn't scale easily):
Thanks for the article Amanda. I'm sure the method works well, but I am not willing to create or maintain a trigger for each agent in our Zendesk as we have nearly 80 of them and the list is not always static due to turnover. This functionality could be made available via a setting with a few choices to pick from:
- Automatically assign a new follow-up ticket to the original assignee
- Automatically assign a new follow-up ticket to the original group
- Do not automatically assign new follow-up tickets (this is today's behavior)
It could also be incorporated into the trigger system for greater flexibility, but I'm not sure if great flexibility is needed for this.
60 comments over 7 years and it still didn't make the prioritisation list? Folks, this isn't some nice-to-have idea, this seems like basic functionality that should have been included from the start.
Ideally, I'd add to the feature request the ability, as an admin, to select what is preserved (e.g. besides Group and/or Assignee, a couple of cornerstone custom fields).
I am sure adding a 45th comment to this years-old thread will probably not make anything happen, but this functionality should have been available from the start.
It's patently ridiculous that a follow-up ticket inherits custom field responses but does not inherit anything related to assignment at all. If it's truly a follow-up on the original issue, there is a nearly 100% chance that the same group will handle it at the very least, and in many cases the same agent will be involved. How does it make any sense to not just inherit those properties?
The fact that there's an article on the Zendesk Help Desk explaining how to use a whopping three triggers per agent to set up this functionality means they know it's something people want and that it's not feasible to setup at scale. So why not add the functionality?
I will reiterate what others have said. We should have the option of automatically routing new follow-ups to the original group, with an additional option to route to the same agent if they are still active in the system.
+1. This should be standard functionality within a ticketing system.
it seems like this would be a bit of a no-brainer to add as a default setting as a follow up ticket would naturally be handled by the same group if not the same assignee. As it is right now it is easy for a ticket to get lost, or for agents to not be able to access follow up tickets and have to rely on admins to find them.
Major votes for adding this setting! :)
It is disappointing that this routing is not offered by Zendesk as a default option.
Similar to this workaround, Automatically assigning a follow-up ticket using triggers, I built my own workaround using 3 triggers which pull the assignee ID and group ID from the original ticket, save them to a target, and then pull them from the target when a follow-up ticket is created for use in routing the follow-up ticket to the original assignee and group.
This method of solving Zendesk's feature gap is way more scaleable than the aforementioned article because you don't need to create a custom trigger & tag per agent. Rather, since it uses assignee and group IDs, you just need to set this up once and it works for all agents as your team grows and contracts.
I built mine from a Support tip article which it looks like Zendesk pulled down. Bummer.
@Gasper, the crux here is in 'discovered'. Regardless of the company or specific use case, I think we can work off of a few assumptions:
- The vast majority of ZD email users will have a need for somewhat persistent Groups and Agent assignments
- All of these users are likely to use some form of trigger to assign to these Groups (unless contact volume is so low that all of that sorting is done manually)
- It is impossible to predict or prevents end-customers from replying to emails after an indefinite amount of time, creating follow up cases.
This alone tells us, that many, if not all users, will receive follow-up tickets and have a need to treat those tickets in the same way than the original case, whether the reply comes after 1h hour or 1 month.
It would be feasible to either transfer all the data of the parent ticket, including group/agent assignment, to the follow-up or transfer none of it and treat the follow-up like a new case, trusting your triggers to route them the same way as they'd done before.
However, somewhere in the design there was a deliberate decision to only transfer partial data, making it impossible for a trigger to distinguish between an already routed open case and a follow-up case, entirely without group/agent assignment.
So what would this option look like?
My thought is...
Follow up ticket options:
 Preserve agent on follow up ticket
 Preserve group on follow up ticket
If agent no longer exists
O Return to group, no assignee OR
O Return to no group, no assignee
If group no longer exists returns to no group
Comments, suggestions, options?
This is marked "Answered" but there's no answer pinned, and it's a feature request. Does this mean this will not be considered?
We definitely need this as well - it seems like such a loss to lose this information when the whole point of a Case Management system is to gather enough information to properly route tickets. Here we actually have all the info we need - would be great to be able to use it. Seems more like a defect than feature that we're able to extrapolate less from these type of tickets instead of more.
So do we! We use the multibrand function and in order to separate tickets between brands by autoassigning them to different groups based on the email address on which they are received.
However, follow-up tickets do not get assigned to any group and are thus "lost" in the empty space between brands, and neither are tickets received through the web potral (I suspect it'll be the same for the HelpCenter, when we activate it).
Please allow us to set up a trigger to control this.
I am curious to know how ZenDesk handles this in-house?
Agree. This is the expected behaviour and it is frustrating to have to work around this.
We are experiencing this bug as well. It's particularly annoying in our case as we have multiple product groups and the follow-ups all end up in a single group and the tickets must be re-assigned to be seen.
This seems like it's a clear bug... and frankly doesn't even seem to match the documented behavior of follow-up which is to "copy all ticket data" from original ticket.
I agree with the previous sentiments on this, that it would be great to have follow up tickets automatically re-assigned to the original assignee.
Our recent reports showed these as big backlogs as they were previously being lost. It leaves the ownership with our agents and would also build better engagement if customers regularly interacted with the same staff member for any follow ups to an existing issue.
Would be a huge help for us if this can get created!
Any updates on this? It seems like the follow-up ticket should at least be assigned to the same group as before, if not the specific agent.
Hi Nicole Relyea,
I don't recall the article name but if you search your archives by any of these strings you should be able to find it as they're verbatim from the article:
The names of the targets used:
"Set Original Assignee ID"
"Set Original Group ID"
"Set Assignee from Original Assignee ID"
"Set Group from Original Group ID"
"Follow-Up Ticket Routing to orig. Assignee - trigger 1"
"Follow-Up Ticket Routing to orig. Assignee - trigger 2"
"Follow-Up Ticket Routing to orig. Assignee - trigger 3"
A particular tag name:
We are having the same problem. We have so many users and groups and we are constantly growing - so it's not possble for us to create this many triggers and updating them constantly whenever we have a new agent onboard. So having a feature that would automatically assign a follow up tickets to the original assignee(group/agent) is neccessary in our work, to be able to deliver good customer service. We really hope this feature will be available soon :)
+1 for this feature.
The URL target solution makes a lot of sense as a scalable solution, a shame it's not a "supported" approach.
I don't doubt there have been more important feature priorities over the past 6+ years but this is sort of table stakes here. The way this functions by default is just bound to be wrong for many more teams than it is correct.
+1 for this feature !!
It seems to be the minimum required for follow up ticket
The concept of the "follow up tickets" channel is in and of itself confusing and problematic.
It seems like it may have been some kind of shortcut to create an association between the closed ticket and the new ticket or just wasn't thought through completely. Why do these tickets have to be associated with a different channel altogether? I think that's really the source of the problem that is being discussed here.
+1 for this feature.
Please, do you know when it will be done? I think it is necessary
Ticket is closed -> client responds...Seems pretty common practice for the person originally assigned to this ticket to be assigned to this new one and/ have or some easier way (without the need for multiple triggers per agent) to be notified. At the every least..since it has a new ticket number , to have the same flexibility as other new tickets.
Nicole, thank you for bumping this with the Product Team.
I'm guessing the reason it's been shelved is the underlying technical design does not support it, and a significant rewrite would be required to add it.
ZD also does not support linking tickets (as siblings), which, presumably suffers from the same issue.
These are important features of a robust CRM system. If ZD wants to maintain market share, it will need to solve these problems.
Hi! I think this would be a great feature to have since a lot of end users follow-up and expect to be speaking to the same agent.
One more on the waitlist for this feature to be developed. Any news from the new Product Manager?
Yes, it would be great if the follow-up ticket at least inherited the same group; that would be enough for us. Same agent would be nice too, but the group is what is important.
So far I have implemented the suggested workaround for 10 of our groups: a trigger to tag tickets that are closed with a tag that identifies the group, and then a trigger for follow-up tickets to assign to that group. That was 20 triggers. I now have to do it for 10 more groups, so that is 20 more triggers. We have too many groups to be creating two triggers for every group.
Vous devez vous connecter pour laisser un commentaire.