Hi everybody! I'm refining our CSI systems here at TheatreWorks, and need some feedback about what you all are doing at your orgs with CSI Actions.
It's occurring to me that CSI Actions and CSI Ticklers do some overlapping work. Both link back directly to the CSI (rather than ticklers linking to actions, which link to the CSI), and both have fields for a "type" and some notes (admittedly less space for notes in a tickler, but I'll worry about that later -- we're all too long-winded anyway, right?).
It seems to me that we could take care of all of our documenting of the CSI resolution steps using Ticklers, with the added benefit of being able to assign each step to the right employee. If we did this, the only purpose of CSI Actions would be to mark a CSI as closed/resolved.
So, given that I'm considering taking this drastic step, does anybody want to warn me of any potential hazzards? And does anybody have examples of how you are using CSI Actions vs. CSI Ticklers effectively at your org?
Thanks for your help!
Kirk MortensenDBA, TheatreWorks(Maybe it's just me that's the long-winded one...)
Lucie,
Thanks for your response! So, for you, Ticklers look forward to future steps that need to be taken, and Actions are entered to document the steps after they’ve been taken? Can you give me some examples of the tickler types that you would use in the example that you listed?
Anybody else have thoughts about CSI Action usage for me?
Thanks,
Kirk Mortensen
Database Administrator
TheatreWorks