Comments on the record. The chronology of one complaint

Let us follow one complaint from the moment it is reported to the moment it is closed. Not to show a textbook case, but to see where the agreements that explain it are written down.

Monday: the report

A client reports a fault two months after installation. The complaint is created as a record: a number assigned by the system, a client picked from the database, a description of the fault, a device selected from the register. The process starts at its first stage, and entering that stage creates a task assigned to the technician, who is notified about it.

At this point the record has data and not one sentence about what anybody thinks of the case.

Tuesday: the first finding

The technician inspects the device and writes a comment on the record: mechanical damage, probably in transit, a decision on replacement is needed. The comments section is part of the record layout, so it sits below the complaint's data rather than in a separate tool. Whoever opens the case sees both on the same screen.

Every comment has an author, and if the text contains a mistake it can be corrected. In the comment the technician mentions the manager. The manager receives a notification with an excerpt of the comment and goes from it straight to the record. Nobody is added to a CC line and nobody forwards a thread, because the context is where the case is. Mentions also work in rich-text fields, so a person mentioned in the fault description is signalled too.

Wednesday: a decision with a reason

The manager decides the replacement is covered by the warranty, but the report has no proof-of-purchase number. He executes the transition that returns the case for completion. That transition requires a comment, so it cannot be performed without giving a reason. He writes: proof-of-purchase number missing.

The comment stays in the transition history together with who performed it and when. The return for completion needs no separate explanatory e-mail, and the record itself explains why it went back one stage.

Thursday: a short exchange

The salesperson fills in the number and writes that the client is asking about a date. The technician replies with one. The manager does not write “ok” but leaves a reaction on the comment instead. The comment's author is notified of it, and the case gains no messages that add nothing.

If the outcome of a phone call with the client came up here, it would go into a comment as well. The call itself happens outside the system, but what was agreed stays with the record.

Friday: the close

The replacement is done and the complaint moves to its final stage. The record holds everything: the data, the comments in the order they were written, the reasons behind the transitions, the authors and the dates.

This is something other than a set of dates on a timeline. The process history says which way the case went and who pushed it along. The comments say why it went that way and not another. Either one without the other leaves a gap that months later gets filled with guesswork.

Half a year later

The client comes back with the same device. Whoever takes the report opens the previous complaint and within seconds knows what was agreed and why. They do not ask who handled the case and do not search somebody else's inbox. Had the agreements stayed in an e-mail thread, that knowledge would belong to the people who were copied in, and one of them would already have changed jobs.

An entry no person wrote

Not everything in this chronology comes from people. Comments on records and contractors can be added, read and edited through the programming interface, so an integration can record the outcome of an operation in another system right on the case. Such a comment is attributed to the integration's token rather than to a user, so its origin is obvious.

What the system will not do for the team

This chronology rests on one assumption: that the team writes on the record. The tool will not force that. If decisions are still made in e-mail and the comments section stays empty, nothing improves. What is needed is a simple rule: cases handled in the system are discussed on the record.

A comment is not a place for data either. If an order number, a deadline or an amount keeps appearing in comments, the record is missing a field. What is written in a comment cannot be filtered or counted in a report. After a month, review what keeps recurring in the comments, because those are candidates for new fields.

And one last thing: a comment does not make a decision. The sentence “replacement approved” does not move the complaint to the next stage. The transition makes the decision, and the comment justifies it.

Test this on your own last difficult case. If the person who handled it left tomorrow, how much of what was agreed would stay in the system, and how much in their inbox?