220-1102 Operational Procedures Practice Question

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.

• ✗

  Close the ticket without further documentation

  Why it's wrong here

  Documentation is a critical part of the ticket lifecycle because it provides an audit trail of the work performed, supports future troubleshooting, and allows your organization to build a searchable knowledge base. Without a written record of the repair steps, parts replaced, and configurations changed, the ticket is incomplete even though the user reports satisfaction. In many ITIL-aligned ticketing systems, a ticket with missing resolution notes is considered non-compliant and can compromise warranty claims, trend analysis, and quality assurance efforts. Closing it this way leaves the organization blind to recurring hardware or software faults.

• ✓

  Document the resolution steps and close the ticket

  Why this is correct

  After the user confirms the repair, the ticket should be finalized by adding a concise resolution note that describes the root cause, the action taken, any parts or software used, and the verification step performed. This documentation transforms the ticket from a simple request into a useful reference for future incidents, enabling other technicians to resolve similar issues faster and reducing repeat visits. Proper closure also ensures the ticket meets the service desk's definition of done, which typically includes both user confirmation and a complete work log. Closing the ticket promptly maintains accurate SLA reporting and prevents the ticket from being overlooked in queue reviews.

• ✗

  Ask the user to submit a new ticket for verification

  Why it's wrong here

  Asking the user to submit a new ticket for verification is redundant because the user has already confirmed the fix, so the existing ticket's verification step is satisfactorily completed. A duplicate ticket would contaminate incident metrics, waste the user's time, and require additional dispatching or triage that is not needed. In a properly managed ticketing system, reopening the same ticket is the correct action if a follow-up is required, not creating a new one. This practice also risks losing the context and history already captured in the original ticket, which could delay future resolution.

• ✗

  Leave the ticket open for a week for monitoring

  Why it's wrong here

  Leaving the ticket open for a week after the user confirms resolution artificially extends the ticket's resolution time and backlog, which skews key performance indicators such as mean time to resolve (MTTR), first-contact resolution rate, and SLA compliance. Most service desks automatically escalate or alert on tickets older than a set threshold, so an unnecessary open ticket could generate false escalations and additional work. Continuous monitoring of a repaired system is sometimes useful, but that should be handled by creating a separate proactive maintenance task or a follow-up ticket with a specific due date, while the original incident ticket is closed. Keeping the ticket open without a defined task is a common mistake that muddies queue prioritization and delays legitimate incoming tickets.

Go deeper

Related to this question