Dynacare was in growth mode, with the acquisition of 2 - 3 new companies each year. They needed a tool which helps them to keep up with the growth of the company. After implementing IncidentMonitor their First Call Resolution (FCR) increased from 4% to 56%, the average request turnaround time for incidents dropped from 216 hours to 25 hours.

With the implementation of IncidentMonitor™ from Monitor 24-7 Inc. LDI introduced a simple, no-training-required, self-service portal. IncidentMonitor includes a service catalog which automates ticket routing to the right person in the right place, with full automation. The result is a minimum of 360 hours/year saved by the desktop team, another 60 hours saved on automating the process of ordering a printer cartridge.

Company with around 1,000 employees of which around 300 in a mobile job. The support desk of 10 persons supports the internal staff as well as the employees in the field. People in the field are highly dependable on their mobile equipment and access to company systems via web and vpn. All services are organized according ITIL. Some of the demands were for example toset up workflows according ITIL to force the company into procedures, end users and support staff should be able to log and view tickets in a web support portal anytime anywhere, etc...

Company with around 100 employees of which 20 in first line support, 20 software developers and 30 consultants offers external IT support to organizations in the midsize market as well as hosting solutions. They were looking for a tool that could support the hosting environment, their own internal organization and at the same time was able to support external customers. This meant the application needed to support multiple service level agreements (SLA), multiple web portals to meet multiple requirements for external customers. An easy to configure service catalog as well as self help portal with a practical knowledge base was key. As the company invested heavily in ITIL v3 certification of their staff it was important that the tool they selected would support this. With the change and release management flows this meant that the tool selection was also focusing on workflow capabilities. And last but not least was the limited budget availability.