How to Get More Out of Your IT Service Desk: 6 Strategies That Actually Work
Your service desk metrics look great. Average handle time is down. First response time is under ten minutes. Ticket volume is steady. Then the VP of Sales corners you after standup: “Why does it take three days to reset someone’s laptop permissions? My team is still waiting on that CRM integration issue from last week.”
You pull up the tickets. Both were closed by your service desk within the Service Level Agreement (SLA). Both were handed off to specialist teams (security, integration support), and that’s where they vanished into the void. Your service desk did its job perfectly. The work still didn’t get done.
This is the coordination problem that most IT directors face right now. You’ve optimized your service desk. You’ve integrated your tools. But you’re still getting blindsided by problems that fell through the cracks between teams. The bottleneck isn’t in your queue anymore. It’s in the handoffs your dashboards can’t see.
How handoffs kill context
Here’s what typically happens when your service desk routes a ticket to a specialist team. A user reports: “Can’t access the customer data in the CRM.” Your L1 agent asks good triage questions, verifies the user’s role, confirms they can access other systems, and checks recent permission changes. They document everything, tag it for the CRM team, and hand it off.
The CRM specialist picks it up three hours later. They’re staring at a ticket that says “can’t access data” with a bunch of context that made sense to the service desk but doesn’t map to how CRM permissions actually work. They need to know which specific objects the user can’t see, whether this is new data or data they previously accessed, and what their Salesforce profile looks like. They ping the user directly or send it back to the service desk for more information.
The user, already frustrated, answers the same questions again. The service desk agent, also annoyed, watches their perfectly documented ticket come back marked “insufficient information.”
You’ve automated the handoff. You’ve integrated the ticketing systems. But you haven’t solved the translation problem. Your service desk agent knows how to extract information from users, but they don’t know what the CRM team needs. Your CRM specialist knows exactly what questions to ask, but they’re not the ones talking to the user. The faster you route tickets, the faster you’re throwing context over a wall that the receiving team can’t see over.
Most IT directors try to solve this with improved integrations. You connect your ITSM platform to your development tools, your ticketing system to collaboration channels. Tickets flow smoothly between systems. Status updates appear automatically. Everyone can see the same information.
But the integration moved the data. It didn’t translate the meaning. It didn’t capture the three questions the user answered verbally but didn’t make it into the ticket notes. It didn’t convey that this is the fifth similar issue this month, or that the user is a VP’s executive assistant who’s now escalating through different channels. Your specialist team is making decisions based on incomplete context, not because they’re careless, but because the context they need doesn’t exist in structured fields that integrations can sync.
Outside of IT, industries with higher stakes have been studying handoff failures for decades. Healthcare learned that handoffs fail because different specialists literally see different things as important. An ER doctor hands off a patient, thinking about immediate stabilization. The surgical team receives that patient thinking about operative risk factors. Their solution isn’t better note-taking. It’s structured handoff protocols where both sides must be present for the transition, creating a moment where both parties can ask questions before the handoff completes.
IT keeps missing what healthcare and manufacturing learned: handoffs fail when specialists optimize locally. Your service desk gets good at triaging and documenting. Your specialist teams get good at solving complex problems. Neither optimizes for the handoff itself, because neither feels responsible for what happens in that gap.
Six interventions that preserve context across tool boundaries
The strategies that actually work don’t require replacing your entire stack or implementing some new framework. They require treating the handoff as its own domain that needs explicit design.
1. Create embedded liaison roles that speak both languages
Instead of having your service desk route tickets directly to specialist teams, position someone who understands both domains at the boundary. This isn’t a manager or a coordinator. It’s someone technical enough to understand the specialist work but familiar enough with front-line support to know what context matters.
A senior service desk agent who specializes in CRM issues and maintains a relationship with the CRM team fills this role well. They don’t solve the CRM problems themselves, but they translate the initial ticket into the language and structure the CRM team actually uses. When the CRM team has questions, they ask the liaison, who knows whether to pull more information from the user or whether they can answer from their accumulated knowledge of similar issues.
This role only works if the person maintains credibility with both sides. The service desk needs to trust that the liaison will push back on the specialist team when they’re asking for information that won’t actually help. The specialist team needs to trust that the liaison understands their domain well enough not to waste their time with incomplete handoffs.
Where to start
Identify your highest-volume handoff categories. Pick one. Find someone who’s good at those issues and interested in developing deeper expertise. Give them explicit time to build relationships with the receiving team and learn their mental models.
What good looks like
The specialist team stops asking for additional information on most tickets from this liaison. The liaison starts predicting what the specialist team will need before they ask.
2. Implement structured handoff rituals that slow down to speed up
When your service desk is under pressure to clear their queue, they optimize for getting tickets handed off quickly. When your specialist teams are under pressure to deliver projects, they optimize for batching similar tickets and working them asynchronously. Both behaviors make sense locally but destroy context at the boundary.
A structured handoff ritual forces a synchronous moment where both sides are present. Set up a daily fifteen-minute sync between your service desk and your most common specialist handoff (usually network, security, or application support). During this window, review tickets that are ready for handoff. The service desk agent explains the issue and their triage. The specialist asks clarifying questions immediately. If information is missing, the service desk can pull the user into the conversation right then, rather than starting an asynchronous information-gathering cycle.
This feels slow and seems to defeat the purpose of asynchronous workflow tools. But organizations consistently see it reduce total resolution time because it eliminates the multiple round-trips that happen when context is lost in translation.
Where to start
Start a pilot with one specialist team that handles high-impact issues. Make it optional for the first two weeks while people learn the pattern. Track resolution times for tickets handled through the sync versus tickets handed off asynchronously.
What good looks like
The specialist team starts bringing tickets to the sync that they’ve already received because they’d rather get clarity immediately than spend time investigating in the wrong direction.
3. Build real-time escalation mechanisms with human override
Your service desk has escalation paths defined in your ITSM tool. Priority levels, SLA clocks, and automatic notifications when thresholds are crossed. This works fine for keeping tickets moving through queues, but it doesn’t solve the problem where a ticket is technically being worked on but the actual resolution is stalled.
The ticket sits with the security team for two days, the status is updated regularly, but the user still can’t do their job because there’s a dependency the security team is waiting on from another team. Your SLA dashboard shows everything within acceptable ranges. The user is furious because nothing is actually happening.
Build a lightweight protocol where anyone involved with a ticket can flag it as “blocked” or “stuck” with a brief explanation of why. This flag surfaces the ticket to a designated escalation coordinator (often a service delivery manager or senior service desk lead) who has the organizational authority and context to intervene. They don’t solve the problem themselves. They unblock it by connecting people, clarifying priorities, or escalating to leadership when there’s genuinely a resource conflict.
The key is that this isn’t automatic. The person flagging the ticket makes a judgment call that human intervention will help. The escalation coordinator makes a judgment call about the right intervention. This preserves context and maintains credibility that automatic escalations destroy.
Where to start
Create a simple “blocked” status or tag in your ticketing system. Designate one person to monitor these flags and respond within two hours. Set the expectation that this is for genuine blockages, not routine delays.
What good looks like
People start using the flag proactively when they recognize a ticket is stuck, before users escalate through management channels. The escalation coordinator develops enough pattern recognition to predict blockages and design improved handoff processes.
4. Establish visibility protocols that surface who knows what
Most of your coordination problems stem from information asymmetry. The service desk knows things about the user’s situation and history that the specialist team needs. The specialist team knows things about recent changes and common failure modes that the service desk needs. Both sides have this information. It’s just not visible at the point where decisions get made.
You can’t solve this by documenting everything in tickets. That creates noise, and no one reads it. Instead, create lightweight visibility protocols that surface the right information at the right time.
For the service desk, this might look like a question they ask before every handoff: “Is there anything about this user, this timing, or recent patterns that the receiving team should know?” If yes, that goes in a specific “Context Notes” field that the specialist team knows to check. If no, leave it empty.
For specialist teams, this might look like a brief weekly summary of common issues they’re seeing and recent changes they’ve made, distributed to the service desk in a standardized format. Not detailed technical explanations, but awareness: “We pushed a CRM update Tuesday that’s causing intermittent sync issues. If users report delays seeing new data, it’s likely related and should clear in twenty-four hours.”
The goal is to make tacit knowledge explicit at the moments when it matters, without creating documentation overhead that everyone ignores.
Where to start
Identify one category of issues where a lack of context regularly causes delays. Design a minimal visibility protocol for just that category. Make it specific. Not “document things better” but “these three pieces of information in this specific place.”
What good looks like
The receiving team starts referencing the context notes in their resolution updates. The service desk starts adjusting their triage based on the awareness summaries.
5. Design collaborative workspaces for cross-team issues
Some issues don’t fit the handoff model at all. They require ongoing collaboration between multiple teams, but your ticketing system forces you to pick which team owns the ticket at any given moment. So the ticket bounces between queues, each team adding their piece of the puzzle with no one seeing the full picture at once.
For these complex issues, you need a collaborative workspace that sits outside the normal ticketing workflow. Create dedicated channels or spaces for specific cross-functional issues, with clear naming conventions and explicit expectations about participation. Invite representatives from each involved team. Use the space to share context, troubleshoot in real time, and coordinate testing or validation steps. Keep the ticket as the system of record for formal tracking, but do the actual coordination work in the collaborative space.
The mistake most teams make is trying to use their ticketing system as the collaboration space, or creating collaboration spaces for routine handoffs that don’t need them. The ticket system is for tracking and accountability. The collaboration space is for solving problems that require simultaneous attention from multiple domains.
Where to start
Next time you encounter an issue that bounces between three or more teams, create a dedicated space for it. After resolution, document what made collaboration easier or harder. Use those learnings to define when this approach makes sense.
What good looks like
Teams proactively create collaboration spaces when they recognize an issue needs it, before the ticket has already bounced around for days.
6. Create feedback loops that capture handoff failures
Your metrics tell you how long tickets take and whether SLAs are met. They don’t tell you how many times a ticket had to come back for more information, how many tickets were routed to the wrong specialist team, or how much time users spent providing the same information to multiple teams.
After tickets close, implement a brief review process for any ticket that involved multiple handoffs or re-routing. Not every ticket, but enough to identify patterns. Ask: What information was missing at the first handoff? What questions got asked multiple times? Where did context get lost? What would have prevented the extra round-trips?
The people doing this review should include representatives from both sides of common handoffs. You’re not looking for who messed up. You’re looking for where your current handoff process has systemic gaps. Maybe your CRM tickets consistently require follow-up questions about which objects the user can’t access, suggesting your service desk needs a more specific triage checklist for CRM issues.
Where to start
Pick one high-volume or high-impact handoff category. Review ten closed tickets from the last month. Just look for patterns—don’t try to fix everything at once.
What good looks like
You start seeing measurable reductions in round-trips for specific ticket categories after implementing targeted improvements based on the patterns you identify.
Making handoffs visible and functional
The strategies that actually improve service desk outcomes aren’t about making your service desk faster or smarter. They’re about recognizing that your service desk is part of a larger support system where handoffs matter as much as individual team capabilities.
When work crosses team boundaries that span multiple tools and teams that think differently about the work, you need explicit mechanisms to preserve context and enable coordination. This is where ticket escalation workflows that maintain context across systems become essential. When your service desk hands off to security, and security needs to involve the application team, and the application team needs development support, the context captured at the beginning needs to travel through each handoff without requiring manual copying or translation between systems.
Start with one high-impact handoff. Implement one of these strategies. Measure not just ticket velocity, but how often context is preserved and collaboration happens without escalation. That’s the metric that actually predicts whether your users experience your service desk as helpful or as the first step in a frustrating multi-team runaround.
See why your service desk needs Unito
Meet with a Unito product expert to learn how Unito's two-way sync can enhance your ticket escalation workflows.