Proposed GLR-wide User Reports (UR) response system

Coordinator: GizmoGuy411 & ARC: RoadTechie | SkiDooGuy
------------------------------------------------------------

Moderators: delilush, GizmoGuy411, roadtechie, SkiDooGuy

Proposed GLR-wide User Reports (UR) response system

Postby TerryPurdue » Sun Apr 12, 2015 8:08 pm

The following is a draft of a proposed system for UR response across the Region. The State Managers have already reviewed the proposal.

As it relates to UR response, something the majority of editors are involved with at some level, the State Managers wanted all editors to have the opportunity to review the proposal and provide constructive criticism if desired.

If/when consensus is reached -- which may require more revisions, which the SM's are entirely open to -- the SMs will request a formal review from GizmoGuy411. Gizmo can then decide how best to move the proposal towards becoming a new region-wide standard.

-------------

Name: Great Lakes Region User Report Management

Response Timeline (NOTE: all day values are relative to the date the FIRST editor response is sent to the reporter):
  • Day 0: the first editor who is able to respond to UR should attempt to resolve the UR. If they are successful, they should comment as such in the UR and mark it closed. If more information from the reporter is required to make progress towards closure, a response should be sent to the reporter containing the information needed for resolution
  • Day 4+: polite reminders should be sent to reporters who have not responded to the initial at any time, provided at least four full days have elapsed since the initial response was sent
  • Day 8+: URs may be noted as closed due to lack of reporter response at any time, provided at least four full days have elapsed since the followup message was sent
Shared Ownership:
  • All editors are considered to have equal ownership of and responsibility for all URs in the Great Lakes Region.
  • All editors, regardless if they have worked the UR previously, may send any of the responses describe above, provided they adhere the minimum time spacing guidance between responses.
  • All editors are explicitly encouraged to attempt resolving URs at any point during their lifecycle, even if others happen to be actively working it at the same time
Notes:
  • The ideal timeline for UR response is when responses are sent as early as the minimum required time spacing between messages permits; experience has reliably shown that UR response rates are much higher when editors are able to send responses promptly
  • While strongly recommended, it is not required to send the followup message.

-----------

Feel free to send via PM if you don't want to reply publicly.

Thanks!

-The Great Lakes Region State Managers
[ img ][ img ]
Local Champ Mentor | USA
Country Manager | USA
TerryPurdue
Local Champ Mentor
Local Champ Mentor
 
Posts: 962
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 2:05 am
Location: N. Virginia (DC Metro)
Has thanked: 555 times
Been thanked: 1055 times

Re: Proposed GLR-wide User Reports (UR) response system

Postby BobTheWikipedian » Sun Apr 12, 2015 8:46 pm

Support, though I would change 8 days to 10 since that is a more commonly used etiquette measure. Works either way for me, though. Seems this is a good policy that keeps us moving forward and respecting the importance of client satisfaction.
[ img ]
Large Area Manager for Indiana Vincennes District.
Area Manager for Evansville.
BobTheWikipedian
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2015 11:05 pm
Location: Evansville, IN
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: Proposed GLR-wide User Reports (UR) response system

Postby roadtechie » Sun Apr 12, 2015 9:59 pm

I would definitely support it. The only thing I would question is the optional followup after 4 days. Its all too common for someone to respond after the 4 day followup.
-Roadtechie
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
Assistant Regional Coordinator | Great Lakes
Local Champ Mentor | USA
Country Manager | USA
roadtechie
Local Champ Mentor
Local Champ Mentor
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 4:05 am
Location: Indiana, USA
Has thanked: 1366 times
Been thanked: 376 times

Re: Proposed GLR-wide User Reports (UR) response system

Postby aeroseek » Mon Apr 13, 2015 12:35 am

Support as proposed. This is pretty much what we've been doing in the Chicago area. It works.
Aeroseek
[ img ][ img ]
AM Northern Illinois
AM Southern Wisconsin
aeroseek
Map Raider
Map Raider
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 3:26 pm
Location: West Suburban Chicago
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Proposed GLR-wide User Reports (UR) response system

Postby Lonewolf147 » Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:25 am

I support this as proposed too.
Lonewolf147
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 6:01 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, USA
Has thanked: 209 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Re: Proposed GLR-wide User Reports (UR) response system

Postby Poncewattle » Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:58 am

I've been using this system for about 3 months in NYC and VA with about 1000 URs. It works really well. I was initially skeptical of the day 4 followup, figured it was a bit of a waste of time. But my experience is almost half of my responses occur after the followup/reminder response so I strongly encourage that. I almost always send the followup even if I'm behind in doing them and find URs with 8 days elapsed after the first message is sent.
Poncewattle
State Manager: Delaware
Area Manager: Luray, VA : Bronx, NY
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
Poncewattle
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:00 am
Location: Virginia/Delaware, USA
Has thanked: 303 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: Proposed GLR-wide User Reports (UR) response system

Postby jdeyoung » Mon Apr 13, 2015 3:59 am

While there's no perfect to work these, and no perfect way to ensure response, these guidelines appear to be working reasonably well. I haven't seen any dramatic change in response rates, but I would note that the guidelines of 4 days between followup and closure be strongly encouraged. If URs are handled in a timely fashion, they would "normally" be closed 8 days from initial contact and no response from original reporter. But I would prefer to strongly encourage at least 4 days after followup and no response before closure regardless of total elapsed time.

Maybe instead of assuming days 0-8 consecutively, it could be better stated "day 4+" from original request when followup should be done, and "day 4+ after followup" for closure timeline.

In some rural areas, I've seen untouched URs that can be months old, but it is at least a courteous thing to acknowledge the long passage of time and make an effort to see whether the reporter can still remember any details. I have occasionally even gotten responses, so the discipline of followup/wait at least 4 days as a practice is still worth it.
[ img ]
AM Chicago, NW Indiana, SW Lower MI
jdeyoung
 
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:04 pm
Location: Greater Chicago Metro area, NW Indiana, SW Lower MI, USA
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 203 times

Re: Proposed GLR-wide User Reports (UR) response system

Postby TerryPurdue » Mon Apr 13, 2015 4:18 pm

Jay,

I believe the current wording covers the followup-to-closeout case:
TerryPurdue wrote:Day 8+: URs may be noted as closed due to lack of reporter response at any time, provided at least four full days have elapsed since the followup message was sent

With the "4+" and "8+" we were trying to highlight those day counts were the earliest the respective messages could be sent but acknowledging the timeline could extend out (much) longer than that.

URs that have only had the initial response message sent can take one of two paths to closure:

  1. Proceed straight to closeout anytime after eight days elapsed since initial response (strongly discouraged!)
  2. Followup message + clouseout message: minimum four-day buffer between initial and followup messages, with another minimum four-day buffer between followup and closeout
In the ten-plus minutes I've struggled to be as clear/concise as possible in my reply to your post, I've come to the personal belief that a simple visual aid may be the best way to communicate the timeline details.

A basic diagram showing the two paths from initial to closure, with arrows showing min/max time durations between messages sent on each of the paths may well be worth a thousand words. :)

If anybody has ten minutes to hack together a quick diagram, I'd be happy to add it to the first post in the thread.

Thanks!

-Terry
[ img ][ img ]
Local Champ Mentor | USA
Country Manager | USA
TerryPurdue
Local Champ Mentor
Local Champ Mentor
 
Posts: 962
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 2:05 am
Location: N. Virginia (DC Metro)
Has thanked: 555 times
Been thanked: 1055 times

Re: Proposed GLR-wide User Reports (UR) response system

Postby zohar760 » Tue Apr 14, 2015 6:35 pm

I support this system, I think it strikes a good balance between user satisfaction and preventing UR clutter. I for one am in favor having a standard to follow, since there are thousands of ways you can approach and handle requests, and not all of them the best.
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
SM: Michigan
AM: Detroit & SE MI (Wayne/Oakland/Macomb counties) | Marquette County MI

Saving the world - one UR at a time.
zohar760
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:04 am
Location: Sterling Heights, MI, USA
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 97 times

Re: Proposed GLR-wide User Reports (UR) response system

Postby subs5 » Wed Apr 15, 2015 2:19 am

I have used this fairly well in the Northern VA/DC/ MD area. Only comment I have is on the "All editors are explicitly encouraged to attempt resolving URs at any point during their lifecycle, even if others happen to be actively working it at the same time" Occasionally the figuring out of the response or proper routing takes a little bit (especially if bad import from Google Maps or a large apt complex without good GIS positioning so need eyes on target to resolve). So if working on it and making sure that the fix is proper, then the other editor jumping in can mess something up.
So I would recommend having other editors wait for 3-4 days before being encouraged to resolve the issue. First it conflicts with the UR resolution diagram in the wiki.
Additionally new editors in metro areas often have little to work so if they are helping on a UR and it gets nabbed from them (waiting for an unlock, or while sleeping or at work) then they will be discouraged and leave. We need to encourage them and not have it turn into the wild west UR gunslingers "fighting it out for URs."
I have had editors (not the reporter) jump in on a UR with no text and they delete a traffic camera and close the report. When queried the response was "I just guessed the problem was the nearby camera".
I know that I closed a UR that was about 3 months old from last comment and the editor came back and said that they were still monitoring so if ANY CONVERSATION with reporter no matter how old then leave open or PM the editor before reporting.
Also until RickZabel tweaks UrComments for the 1/4/8, I have set up the URO+ to hide URs less than 8 days and comments less than 4 days ago to figure out which ones of mine to close. (show only mine works wonders.) I do leave a 4 day notification on others URs, but I leave those open for a few days past 8 so that they can close them if they want.
Last edited by subs5 on Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
subs5
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 1682
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 7:05 pm
Location: Virginia, USA
Has thanked: 546 times
Been thanked: 865 times

Next

Return to US Great Lakes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users