Maff Rigby’s recent article explaining the principles of building peer and community-led support into our service desks provoked a number of strongly opposed views. James West says we can argue the details in due course, but urges us not to ignore the issue regardless to the threat it presents to the IT status quo.

It’s clear the use of social media and peer-to-peer collaboration in an IT support capacity is a touchy, polarising topic, but the scale of the industry division was firmly confirmed by the comments that accompanied our recent article on this issue.

Maff’s description of how collaborative support could work is, in my opinion, logical and sensible and is the kind of practice that all service desks should be at least investigating.  Many of you vigorously disagree, arguing that any support delivery mechanism outside what is already in place is a grave threat to the control that is fundamental for ensuring IT availability and security.

I’m not going to start another debate about the finer details of Maff’s proposed model, the author himself is already working on a follow up article which will expand on the ideas.  I do agree it’s vital that the problems, issues and fine details related to Maff’s proposed model at present should be debated and tested, and that a degree of cynicism is healthy.  I do however think that outright rejection and refusal to even entertain thoughts of peer support is dangerously conservative and unrealistic, and by ignoring it will eventually cause more harm to IT delivery than the problems we fear it will create.

To understand my thinking, we need to step back and consider peer support from a different perspective.  As consumers, who among us likes ringing a call centre?  Or do we pick up the phone as a last resort, after all other options have been exhausted, resigning ourselves to the fact that we will be placed on hold, forced to navigate pointless menus before finally speaking to the one person who probably cares about the call even less than we do?  Admittedly, I’m playing on stereotypes here, but my point is this: we don’t automatically use a call centre when we have a problem.  We search Google, we consult Twitter, we look at forums and FAQs on the supplier’s web site.  If there is an even easier solution, perhaps a colleague across from us knows lots about the thing we have a problem with, we ask them because it is convenient and sensible to find the fastest solution available.

Yes, we need to maintain control of our IT.  And yes, it may be inconvenient when users bypass us and seek help elsewhere.  But is this a problem for the customer, who gets the answer they need faster and without having to go through a drawn out process?  No, the problem is ours – the providers and guardians of IT.  And unfortunately, now that IT is no longer a dark art that only we can understand, we are now treated like all other departments, which means we have to give the organisation what it needs.

The service desk, we are told, must emphasise and justify the ‘service’ part of its name, otherwise business leaders will choose outsourcing or cloud-based software and bypass it altogether.  Peer-based support is at the forefront of this issue.  Service desks can ignore it and pretend it’s a fad.  If we do this, we simply make the job of the finance director, who is debating whether to explore cheaper IT support options, much easier.  Alternatively, we work out why our customers are bypassing us, build tools and facilities that get them back onside and become a facility that everyone uses and respects.  Once we have done so, perhaps the finance director will have cause to look beyond the numbers.