I think that 10 might be a bit too much. I do find myself always looking for at least 1 more level and possibly 2. So my vote is for at least 7, and 8 levels deep would be more than enough in my opinion.

I would love to see an admin option for this one. By default, I think 5 levels is great, as it forces you to think about your heirarchy when you are building it. After you grow into your HelpMaster shoes, though, you may want to expand this. At this point an administrator could decide to open it up further to (x) levels. 

With that in mind, I personally wouldn't like to work with more than 6 or 7 levels at most. It would get so fastidious. It might be great for reporting, but it would be unworkable in the real world.

Also, it would have to be treated with care, as increasing levels would be simple enough, but decreasing would be a different can of worms if, down the track, it was decided that 5 levels were enough after all.

Scott

Thanks Rod,

Yes, I've been a user of two systems with poorly managed classification lists, one was in Helpmaster, the other was a similar product.  In both cases I eventually became responsible for fixing the problem.  It was particularly challenging to make changes to the classification list in a large organisation (350 IT staff) so I really had to have a clear understanding, solid plan and persuasive arguments to build a consensus for change.

Actually I'm a big fan of the "Other" category.  The trick is you need to periodically review how it's being used.  That helps you identify missing categories, opportunities for consolidation or diversification, points of confusion amongst staff (inconsistent usage).  "Other" is also an appropriate house for the truly sundry types of jobs that crop up.  Classification is one of those areas that does evolve over time and you need to devote some administration time to it to ensure it keeps pace with your changing circumstances.  I know a lot of Helpdesk managers would balk at this but it's just a matter of practicality.  Have you ever found yourself at a dead end in a conversation with an IVR?  Your call doesn't match their categorisations and you end up just wanting to talk to a person.  Without an "Other" we end up just forcing round pegs in to square holes.

In terms of automatic assignments based on classification, I have found that to be troublesome.  You end up with one of those tail wagging the dog situations - staff decide who it should be assigned to, then pick a category that triggers that assignment at the expense of matching what the job does to the classification.  You end up with less information - the assignment details tell you the same information as the categorisation.  I prefer the database-purist approach where one field has one meaning: classification as purely a subjective selection that aids reporting, and which section is responsible for carrying out the work is identified in the assignments.  Then you put the smarts in your report, drawing from either assignment details or classification or both, depending on your needs.

Obviously if someone has a set up that's working for them, that's great.  These are just some of my lessons learnt and strategies I would use in a redesign or new implementation.  It's also very IT oriented and I understand that not all Helpmaster installs are for IT customers.